IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4025 of 2010 1. RAJEEV KUMAR S/O LATE SHRIKANT SINGH R/O SHANKARWAR TOLA, WARD NO.5, MOKAMA, P.S. MOKAMA, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING, PATNA CIRCLE, PATNA 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DIVISION, PATNA 6. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER MECHANICAL DIVISION, BARH, PATNA ----------- 2/ 23/09/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is the son of late Shrikant Singh who died in harness as a daily wager. The petitioner made a claim for compassionate appointment which has been rejected by order dated 29.10.2009. It states that his father was appointed on daily wage. He was brought into the work charged establishment on 16.3.1988. He was reverted to the status of a daily wager on 1.6.2002 and died in that capacity on 12.4.2003. Daily wagers do not come in the category of persons whose wards are eligible under the policy for compassionate appointment, not being permanent government servants. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits - 2 - that the issue whether persons in work charged establishment acquire status of permanency after one year under a notification issued in exercise of powers under Article-309 of the Constitution of India in 1949/1950 has been referred to a Division Bench in C.W.J.C. No.1597/10 noticing the conflicting pronouncements of this Court and those of Jharkhand High Court of the same notification when the latter view has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. This Court is satisfied that it can be of no avail to the petitioner on a weak claim for compassionate appointment. The father of the petitioner does not appear to have questioned his reversion as a daily wager on 12.4.2003 and died in that capacity. The question of considering the claims of a deceased to retrospective regularization and a consequent foundation for a claim for compassionate appointment appears too far-fetched for consideration under Article-226 of the Constitution of India. The application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)