NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, J.

The three appellants were the writ petitioners to the writ petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. They had approached this Court for their regularization and for setting aside the order by which their earlier regularization in the service of the State Government had been set aside upon review.

2. Today, a counter affidavit has been filed which is on record. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the State and with their consent, this appeal is being disposed of at this stage itself.

3. The facts of this case are not in dispute. The three writ petitioners/appellants were recruited at different times on daily wages as “Khalasi” in the Central Design Organization, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar. They worked in between 01.01.1985 to April, 1988, in all, for a period in excess of 240 days. They had approached this Court earlier for their regularization, which writ petition was disposed of in the year 2004 with a direction to the authorities to consider their cases and take appropriate action. Accordingly, they were regularized vide office order dated 22.12.2006, which office order was issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Road Construction Department, which was Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Their regularization was short lived inasmuch as on 23.03.2011, they were issued with a show cause to show as to why their regularization be not withdrawn and/or cancelled, being contrary to the resolution no.639 dated 16.03.2006 of the Government and, upon receipt of the cause shown, by the impugned order dated 02.01.2013 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), their regularization order issued earlier on 22.12.2006 was cancelled. This is what brought them to this Court.

4. The learned Single Judge noted that combining the period of work from 01.01.1985 to April, 1988, the writ petitioners had worked for 240 days. They had not worked for 240 days per year in last five (5) years, which, as per the learned Single Judge, was the requirement of the resolution for regularization taken on 16.03.2006. That being so, the learned Single Judge held that the writ petitioners/appellants were irregularly and illegally regularized. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, this appeal has been filed against the aforesaid order dated 29.10.2013 passed in C.W.J.C. No.2678 of 2013 (Ashok Kumar Sharma and others Vs. the State of Bihar and others).

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the history of the action taken by the State Government, for regularization on daily wages employees, if taken into account, would show that there are two classes of employees. He first draws attention of this Court to the resolution of the State Government being resolution no.5940 dated 18th June, 1993 in this regard. Here, it clearly mentions that the State Government had issued cut off date as 01.08.1985 that henceforth there would be no recruitment on daily wages after cut off date. Therefore, it was decided that regularization would be done only in respect of those daily wagers who had been employed for 240 days prior to 01.08.1985, but number of Government Employees Trade Union raised various demands, especially in view of the fact that notwithstanding the aforesaid restriction put by the State Government, due to exigency of work and non-recruitment, large number of people had been employed even after 01.08.1985 on daily wages. Having considered the demand of the Employees Trade Union, whereby the earlier benefit of regularization of daily wagers of which the cut off date was 01.08.1985, this was extended up to 11.12.1990, which is evident now from resolution of the State Government dated 16.03.2006 (Annexure-2 to the Letters Patent Appeal). Thus, all those persons, who had been employed on daily wage but had not worked for 240 days up to 11.12.1990, were held to be liable to be regularized as