1. A common order dated 28.02.2005 passed by the Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of Jharkhand has been impugned in these writ petitions.

2. The learned counsels appearing for the parties state that a common issue is involved in both the writ petitions, whether regularization of the petitioners who were working as daily-wages workers can be approved in law or not. With consent of the counsels appearing for the parties, both the writ petitions are heard and disposed of at this stage itself.

3. Heard.

4. Before adverting to the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties, brief facts in both the writ petitions need to be recorded.

W.P. (S) No. 1691 of 2005

(i) Petitioner no. 1 was appointed on 01.07.1985 and he claims that at the time of regularization he was working on the post of Assistant. Petitioner no. 2 has also pleaded similar facts claiming that he was working on the post of Anusevak since 01.08.1984. Similarly, the petitioner no. 3 is working on the post of Typist from 01.12.1984.

W.P. (S) No. 3403 of 2005

(ii) Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were appointed on the post of driver and they claim that they are working since 01.07.1987 and 13.08.1990, respectively. Petitioner nos. 3 to 5, 8 and 10, 11 and 13 to 16 were appointed on the post of Anusevak. They were appointed between the period 11.02.1982 to 06.05.1988. Petitioner nos. 6, 7 and 9 were appointed on the post of Assistant. They were appointed between the period 1988 to 1992. Petitioner no. 17 was appointed on 01.01.1989 as Night-guard. These petitioners are working under Gumla Simdega Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Gumla.

(iii) All these petitioners were regularized vide orders dated 06.11.2003 and 15.12.2003. Admittedly, when the aforesaid orders for their regularization were issued, except petitioner no. 12, they had completed 10 years of continuous service. Petitioner no.12 was appointed on compassionate ground when her husband died.

(iv) When an issue for regularization of these petitioners were raised in the Assembly, in the light of the response of the Government, a Committee was constituted by the Secretary, Co-operative Department to look into the matter. Thereafter, letter dated 06.11.2003 was issued in respect of regularization of the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 1691 of 2005 and letter dated 15.12.2003 was issued by the departmental Secretary in respect of regularization of petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 3403 of 2005.

5. Mrs. Ritu Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners has tendered a chart disclosing current pay and salary received by the petitioners, which would disclose that the petitioners have been paid salary at par with regular employees. Petitioner namely, Mangru Mahto superannuated from service on 31.10.2015 and the petitioner namely, Sukla Singh retired on 30.04.2005. Petitioner namely, Bandhan Khariya had left service in August, 2007 and the petitioners namely, Suresh Oraon, Bhikham Tana Bhagat, Peter Ekka and Rati Oroan have died during the pendency of the writ petition.

6. This chart is taken on record.

7. Be tagged it at its proper place.

8. Vide order dated 12.04.2005, operation of the impugned order dated 28.02.2005 was stayed by this Court.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the process of regularization was duly followed before the letters for regularization of these petitioners were issued. Moreover, this is not an allegation by the respondents that these petitioners were initially inducted in service illegally. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that power of the employer to regularize the service of its employees is not a concept which has been evolved for the first time in the judgment of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1. In fact, the employer has had this power prior to the decision in Umadevi and this has been recognised by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Others vs. M.L. Kesari and Others, (2010) 9 SCC 247. Per contra, Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, the