The central legal point established in the judgment is the impact of government policy decisions on the regularization of daily wage workers and the obligation of the Corporation to adhere to these policies.

Barin Ghosh and J.N.Singh JJ.

1. As a daily wage worker appellant was appointed by the respondent-Corporation on 4th of March, 1985. This appointment was given at the office of the Corporation at Darbhanga. The appellant was disengaged with effect from 31st of October, 1986. Appellant was thereupon engaged as a daily wage worker by the Corporation to work at its Giridih office with effect from 28th of May, 1987. Thereupon in 1996 the appellant was disengaged. This disengagement was the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition registered as CWJC No. 3292 of 1996. The writ petition was dismissed.

2. On 18th June, 1993 the Government took a policy decision whereby and under it was provided that daily wage workers who have been appointed on or before 1st of August, 1985 and have worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar year and are still being engaged as such should be tried to be regularized and daily wage workers who have been appointed subsequent to 1st of August, 1985 should be disengaged. Inasmuch as the appellant was initially appointed before 1st of August, 1985 and inasmuch as his ultimate disengagement order was based on the decision of the Government dated 18th June, 1993, the appellant once again approached this Court by filing a writ petition and thereby sought for consideration of his case for regularization. The writ petition so filed by the appellant was registered as CWJC No. 10012 of 1996. In the said writ petition it was contended on behalf of the Corporation that the initial engagement of the appellant lost its force in view of his disengagement and his subsequent engagement was admittedly after 1st of August, 1985 and as such the appellant was not covered by the said policy of the Government. The court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Corporation to ascertain whether, in fact, the appellant was engaged before 1st August, 1985 and whether the subsequent disengagement was a temporary disengagement in nature and as a result the engagement of the appellant continued from a period prior to 1st August, 1985. The Corporation looked into the matter and found that the appellant was initially engaged at Darbhanga before 1st August, 1995 and was disengaged in 1986 from Darbhanga and thereupon the appellant was engaged at Giridih in 1987 and, accordingly, the engagement at Darbhanga was not continued at Giridih. The Corporation held that inasmuch as the appellant was not engaged prior to 1st August, 1985 he was not to be considered for regularization in terms of the 1993 policy of the Government.

3. This decision of the Government was assailed by filing the third writ petition which having been dismissed, the present appeal has been preferred. The reasons for dismissal, as recorded, are not interferable in view of the admitted facts, noted above.

4. However, during the pendency of the appeal on 10th May, 2005 the Government altered its policy dated 18th June, 1993, to the extent, amongst others, as follows:

(a) The cut-off date was extended from 1st August, 1985 to 11th December, 1990.

(b) A Committee was constituted to take steps to implement the altered policy.

(c) The Committee was directed to also consider the case of those employees who were disengaged in view of the policy of the Government dated 18th June, 1993.

5. In other words, the Government decided in its policy dated 10th May. 2005 that the cut-off date of the policy dated 18th June, 1993 shall stand extended until 11th December, 1990 and in the event anyone, who had been engaged in between 1st August, 1985 and 11th December, 1990, but had to be retrenched in view of the policy dated 18th June, 1993, his case for regularization should also be considered.

6. Although from the disengagement order of the appellant it is clear that the respondent-Corporation acted on the basis of the Government Policy dated 18th June, 1993 to disengage the appellant, but in view of absence of pleadings it is not known whether the policy of the Gov