IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5217 of 2011 Ashwani Kumar Chaudhary Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 02. 25.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The earlier round of litigation with regard to regularization of the petitioner did not reach any where because despite a so-called direction for consideration contained in Annexure-18, nothing was done. Contempt application came to be filed. After hearing the parties in the contempt, the matter was disposed of as per Annexure-22 by giving liberty to the petitioner to raise such issue by filing a writ petition. Nothing of this kind was done by the petitioner. In the meanwhile, based on a policy decision taken by the Government in the year 2006 on the basis of the Supreme Court decision rendered in the case of Uma Devi and others, all those persons working on daily wage basis were ordered to be removed, in view of the fact that no steps were taken for their regularization nor was any decision taken in their favour as their case did not come within ambit of 2006 policy. Their status as a daily wager is not disputed. If the policy of the State was to remove such persons working on daily wage in light of the decision of Uma Devi then nothing is required to be to be done with regard to Annexure-23. 2 So far as claim of the petitioner for regularization is concerned, this Court is not required to go into the same in the present writ application as that issue will be governed by the decision taken in terms of Annexure-22. Writ is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)