Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 22.6.2011. It rejects their claim for regularisation holding that daily wagers cannot be regularized in terms of the order in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that as of date the petitioners are still working on daily wage. They were appointed on daily wage against Class IV posts as far back as 1976 – 1981. On 18.5.1983 instructions were issued by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, authorising the Executive Engineers to consider regularisation of daily wagers in accordance with the PWD Code. On 26.3.1998 a list of approximately 322 daily wagers was prepared for regularisation which included the name of the petitioners. Regularisations came to be done arbitrarily in a pick and choose manner. The petitioners approached the Court in CWJC No. 10660 of 1996. The application was admitted for hearing. The petitioners thus continued to work and the respondents gave them minimum time scale of pay for Class IV posts. The application was disposed on 28.9.2010 inter alia observing that “many a changes both in fac