IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.419 of 2009 Shri Ram Kumar Sah . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . with CWJC No.424 of 2009 Santosh Kumar Bari . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . with CWJC No.456 of 2009 Shri Shyam Narayan Pal . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . with CWJC No.723 of 2009 Ram Lal Rasgogi . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . with CWJC No.734 of 2009 Bhim Sen Pandey . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . with CWJC No.10944 of 2009 Sri Kant Chaudhary . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 3/ 24/06/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by individual orders of the Committee concerned declining to regularize and absorb their services into the regular establishment. Their contention is that they have worked for long years as seasonal employees or daily wagers and therefore have a claim to be considered for regularization. They had approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No.14267/05. The writ application was disposed with directions to consider their cases in light 2 of the judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Versus Umadevi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. Whether the petitioners were seasonal employees or daily-wagers, they do not come within the ambit of the direction given in the case of Umadevi case (supra) to consider for regularization those who have completed ten years of service against a permanent post. The engagement of a person on seasonal basis from the very nomenclature is precarious in nature, intermittent and gives no sanctity or continuity. The person taking such an employment very well knows the precarious and limited nature of the engagement. Likewise, a daily-wager holds no post and the question of his regularization does not arise. These issues have been explained in the case of Umadevi (supra) itself. But, High Courts were leaning in favour of absorption for regularization of those who had worked as such for ten years. It became necessary for the Supreme Court in 2010 (4) 179 (Satya Prakash v. State of Bihar) to explain that persons like the petitioner do not come within the ambit of the judgement of Umadevi (supra). The directions contained therein are available only to those who had been appointed in the permanent establishment illegally and irregularly and had worked in that capacity for ten 3 years. There is no pleading in the writ application that any engagement of the petitioners on daily-wage was against sanctioned posts. The petitioners have not been able to make out a case for consideration of their claims for regularization under the guidelines and directions of the Umadevi’s case (supra) as explained from time to time. In any event of the matter, regularization visualizes continuity in service. A person who is no more in service has to be appointed and not regularized. On the own showing of the petitioners they are no more in service since long years. The applications are dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)