NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, J.:–The delay in filing this memo of appeal is condoned.

2. The appellants were unsuccessful writ petitioners. They were all employed as daily wage employees in the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, in the Patna Secretariat. They had initially moved a writ petition for their regularization which was remanded to the Government for consideration. Upon consideration, the impugned order dated 08.09.2006 was passed. The writ petitioners challenged the decision of the Government dated 08.09.2006, by which ultimately the Committee, constituted by the Government, considered their case and rejected the prayer for regularization in view of the Government Resolution No. 639 dated 16.03.2006. The ground for refusing regularization was that, in view of Clause 3(i) of the aforesaid Resolution, they had not worked for a minimum period of 240 days continuously for each year in the last five years. The learned Single Judge held that this decision was not incorrect. He further held that such daily wagers had no right to seek regularization, and thereby dismissed the writ petition and hence, the appeal.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants who are writ petitioners and learned counsel for the State and with their consent this appeal is being disposed of at this stage itself.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that whole approach of the authorities and the learned Single Judge is based on the appreciation of the Government decision as evidenced by Resolution No. 639 dated 16.03.2006. In short, he submits that Resolution is in two parts with reference to two distinct periods. The first is the period up to 11.12.1990 which is covered by the first part of the said Resolution and then Clause 3 is in respect of period thereafter. He draws our attention to the said Resolution to show that, so far as Clause 1 of the said Resolution is concerned, it contemplates of regularizing those daily wagers who had worked for 240 days prior to 11.12.1990. Whereas Clause 3(i) dealt with other cases after 11.12.1990, where the requirement was 240 days per year for the last five years. Learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that the approach of the learned Single Judge that the appellants had no right to seek regularization is wrong in view of the fact where the Government has itself taken a policy decision to grant regularization, then a right would lie in the nature of writ of mandamus to the Government to abide by its decision as that decision creates a lawful right in favour of the citizens.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the appellants being mere daily wagers have no right for regularization, and hence the writ petition itself was not maintainable, and the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the same.

5. Having considered the matter, in our view, learned counsel for the appellants is correct on both these issues. Firstly, we would like to point out that if a daily wager comes to the court with a prayer for regularization simplicitor the court could have to see whether he could be regularized which would be subject to initial entry being valid.

6. It is well established that a daily wagers has no right to continue and if that be so, simplicitor he cannot be regularized, but the situation changes. Once, the Government takes an executive decision noting that there are daily wagers who have been coming and are working for long periods on a post which has perennial requirement, then, this executive decision creates a right in favour of the daily wagers to whom it is applicable. Once, such a right is created by States’ own action, then the courts cannot deny enforcement of that right and if the conditions are appropriate then it would be the duty of the State to implement their executive decision and regularize the persons covered by the said Resolution.

7. In the present case, there is no dispute that from time to time Government did take a con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document