JUDGMENT Dr. J.N. Dubey, J : The petitioners, daily wage workers, of the Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation, have filed this writ petition for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularise their services on the posts they arc working or, in the alternative to grant equal pay for equal work. 2. The claim of the petitioners is that they were appointed as daily wage workers, in the Corporation between 1980-1982 on various posts as per the details contained in paragraphs 4 to 6, of the writ petition. In view of the fact that they have been working in he Corporation continuously for last 13-15, years, they are legally entitled to be regularised on the permanent posts lying vacant or, in the alternative, they are, at least, entitled for equal pay for equal work but the respondents are neither regularising their services nor are they prepared to grant them equal pay for equal work with the result the petitioners are still working on daily wage basis end are retting a very meagre amount per day. It is further claimed that a number of writ petitions filed by similarly situated employees of the Corporation were allowed by this Court and respondents were directed to regularise the services of the petitioners of those cases in accordance with law. Letters Patent Appeals and leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court filed on behalf of the Corporation were also dismissed with the result the orders passed by this Court in the writ petitions have become final. Respondents have already regulerised the services of the petitioners of those writ petitions but have not done so in the case of the petitioners, although their case stands on the same footing. 3. On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that the petitioners were not entitled for regularisation of their services as a matter of right. However, the Board of Directors of the Corporation in its 113th meeting held on the 30th and the 31st May, 1988, had taken a decision that casual workers who have been working in the Corporation continuously for the last few years may be regularised after obtaining the approval of Human Resources Development Department and Bureau of Public Enterprises, Government of Bihar. A request was accordingly made to them immediately but they did not take any decision and, accordingly, the Board of Directors in its 114th meeting held on the 24th, 26th and 27th September, 1988, again requested the authorities to accord approval expeditiously but no reply has been received so far. On 18.1.1990, the Corporation constituted a Committee for considering the cases of casual workers, including the petitioners, for regularisation. Interview was also held on 17.4.1990 and 14.5.1990 but, in the meantime, the State Government issued a circular on 18.6.1993 laying down certain criteria for regularisation of casual workers in the State Government Undertaking. It is further claimed that a ban on fresh appointment was also imposed by the State Government which was lifted on 20.10.1994 for the period ending 31st March, 1985. The Corporation has, accordingly, again referred the matter to the Bureau of Public Enterprises, Government of Bihar, for necessary instruction. It is in these circumstances that the services of the petitioners could not be regularised. However, it is not disputed that the writ petitions filed by similar other employees were allowed by this Court and they were directed to regularise the petitioners of those writ petitions in accordance with law. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that this writ petition was squarely covered by the decisions of this Court passed in the writ petitions filed by similarly situated other employees of the Corporation. He further contended that, once this Court had declared that the employees who had been working on daily wage basis for such a long time were entitled to be regularised on the vacant posts, the respondents should have considered the cases of such employees for regularisation. The respondents, however, did not Act, according to the principle laid down by this Court in the earlier writ petitions forcing the poor employees to file separate writ petitions for redress of their grievance. 6. I fine substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is clear from the materials on record that the respondents have not acted fairly in the matter, thereby forcing the poor employees to file repeated writ petitions for redress of their individual grievances which has not only resulted in multiplicity of the proceedings bat has also resulted an unnecessary harassment of the poor employees. It is clear from the materials on record that the respondents have not acted fairly in the matter, thereby forcing the poor employees to file repeated writ petitions for redress of their individual grievances which has not only resulted in multiplicity of the proceedings bat has also resulted an unnecessary harassment of the poor employees. It is unfortunate that the respondents have not considered the cases of all the daily wage workers in terms of various decisions of this Court which were also upheld by the Supreme Court. 7. It will be appropriate, at this stage, to refer to the earlier decisions of this Court rendered in similar circumstances. In CWJC No. 1354 of 1989 (Kaushalendra Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar and others), a Division Bench of this Court held as under :- “We are conscious of the law that guarantee under Article 39 of the Constitution of India read with Articles 14 and 16 thereof may not be extended to benefit one who is not engaged to discharge functions of the same responsibility and nature as claimed by him. But, as we have found in the instant case, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not been discharging the duties of the Accounts AS8istanto In our view, he is entitled to claim the scale of pay admissible to the Accounts Assistants. For the reason aforementioned, this application is allowed. The respondents are directed to extend to the petitioner the same service conditions as are applied to the Accounts Assistants and, accordingly, fix his emoluments.” In CWJC No. 528 of 1990 (Matukdhari Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others), relying on the decisions rendered in CWJC No. of 1989, the learned Single Judge of this Court held :- "6. It is not disputed that since his appointment in the year 1981 the petitioner has been working in the post of Hand Compositor as a daily wage worker. It has been emphatically denied that he was illegally employed. The very fact that the petitioner worked for long ten years without any blemish it fully demonstrates that he was eligible and qualified for performing his duty on the post to which he was appointed and be acted with full satisfaction. Non-consideration for regularisation of his services will not establish by itself that he was not eligible. The very fact that the petitioner worked for long ten years without any blemish it fully demonstrates that he was eligible and qualified for performing his duty on the post to which he was appointed and be acted with full satisfaction. Non-consideration for regularisation of his services will not establish by itself that he was not eligible. Calling for any such interview to test his suitability again in order to regulerise his service is uncalled for. Adopting such method would be most unfair to those who have worked for long years without any break in the post held by them. It is not a case of the respondent Corporation that the petitioner had no requisite qualification. An employee like the petitioner having served for long ten years would be legitimately awaiting for regularisation of his service. It is not stated that the nature of the job which the petitioner performed as Hand Compositor was in any way inferior in nature to those who are perfoming the same job but on regular salary. Therefore, denying equal pay for the same nature of work is without any justification. Irregularity of illegality in the appointment was brought to the notice of the petitioner even before filing of the counter affidavit in this case. Similar grievances were made by some other-petitioners claiming the same relief against the respondent Corporation in another writ application (C.W.J.C. No 1354/89). The petitioners were granted the relief on 16.11.1989 and the writ application was allowed with a direction to absorb them. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondents are directed to regularise the services of the petitioner against any such vacancy which may arise in near future or which may be in existence because the petitioner contend, that there are four vacant posts. The petitioner shall be paid equal pay in the minimum scale on regular basis which is being paid to those performing the same duty as Hand Compositor on regular basis." 8. The Corporation filed L.P.A. No. 110 of 1991 against the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge which was dismissed on 29.4.1992 with the following observation :- 29.4.92. In our opinion, the Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation has spent money unnecessarily in litigation expenses. The learned Single Judie has decided this case following the judgment passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1354 of 1989 by a Division Bench. In our opinion, the Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation has spent money unnecessarily in litigation expenses. The learned Single Judie has decided this case following the judgment passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1354 of 1989 by a Division Bench. Against that earlier judgment no appeal has been preferred be fore any higher Court by the Corporation but the Corporation has chosen to prefer this appeal against the Judgment of the Single Judge of this Court followed which has merely the earlier Division Bench." 9. In C.W.J.C. No. 1818 of 1990 (Sushila Nand Mishra and others vs. State of Bihar and others), a Division Bench of this Court, while allowing the writ petition and directing the Corporation to regularise the services of the petitioners of that writ petition observed as under :- "The respondent Corporation is bent upon doing mischief in spite of orders of this Court. An order was passed by a Division Bench on the similar point in the year 1989 (C.W.J.C. No. 1345 of 1989) but no one had bothered to challenge the same in the higher Court." Similarly, in C.W.J.C. No. 1810 of 1990 (Abhiram Lal karn vs. State of Bihar and others), a Division Bench of this Court granted relief in terms of the decision of this Court in L.P.A. No. 110 of 1992. 10. The orders passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1810 of 1990 and 1818 of 1990 were challenged by the Corporation before the Supreme Court by filing S.L.P. No. 10786 of 1990 and 11063 of 1992 which were heard and dismissed by a common order on 14.9.1992. 11. The Corporation, it appears, did not consider the cases of all eligible daily wage workers for regularisation in terms of the aforesaid decisions and, as such, yet another writ petition, namely, C.W.J.C. No. 4818 of 1992 (keshri Kishore Singh Vs. 11. The Corporation, it appears, did not consider the cases of all eligible daily wage workers for regularisation in terms of the aforesaid decisions and, as such, yet another writ petition, namely, C.W.J.C. No. 4818 of 1992 (keshri Kishore Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others) was filed which was allowed by this Courts on 11.2.1993 and the respondents were directed to consider the cases of the petitioners of that writ petition in terms of the aforesaid orders The Corporation filed Civil Appeal No. 4354 of 1994 (Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation vs. K. Kishore Singh) in the Supreme Court which was dismissed by the an order dated 10.8.1994 which runs as under :- ORDER The respondent, a daily wage worker from July 21, 1984 till date filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court seeking a mandamus directing the appellant to regularise his services and also to grant him equal pay for equal work. The High Court allowed the writ petition in the following terms :- "The fact that the petitioner has been working till date continuously as an operator stands supported by a certificate granted by the respondents themselves as contained in Annexure-2 series which is not in dispute. Four posts were lying vacant and yet the petitioner has been compelled to work as daily wages worker since 21.7.1984 is also not in dispute. It has also been stated that some other employees moved this Court in several writ petitiones, which were allowed, the letters patent Appeal of the Corporation was also dismissed. It further appears that Special leave Petition of Appeal bearing Nos. 10216, 10788 and 11063 all of 1992 were also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the aforementioned view of the matter, we dispose of this writ application, for the reasons recorded in the decisions of this Court referred to above in these cases including the Letters Patent Appeal with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate order/direction within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.' The High Court relied on the reasoning and the conclusions reached by that Court in its earlier judgments. Special Leave petitions against those judgments have already been dismissed by this Court. We see no ground to interfere with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the High Court. Special Leave petitions against those judgments have already been dismissed by this Court. We see no ground to interfere with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the High Court. The appeal is dismissed. No costs." 12. Learned counsel for the Corporation contended that the Corporation had already taken a decision to regularise the services of casual workers, including the petitioners but, in view of the circular date 18.6.1993 issued by the State Government laying down certain conditions for regularisation of the services of such casual workers in the State Government Undertakings no final decision could be taken. He has further contened that a ban was also imposed by the State Government for filling up vacant posts which was temporarily lifted on 20.10.1994 and, therefore, the matter has again been referred to the Bureau of Public Enterprises, Government of Bihar, for necessary instruction. I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the Corporation. It is not clear as to why in spite of the decision taken by the Board of Directors of the Corporation in May, 1988, the services of the petitioners were not regularised till the date of issuance of the circular by the State Government on 18.6.1993. Similarly, it is not clear as to when the State Government has imposed the ban on the filling up the vacant posts in the State Government Undertakings. It is relevant to point out here that the State of Bihar has been impleaded as respondent no. 1 in this writ petition but it has not contested the claim of the petitioners and, therefore, the Corporation cannot take the stand that inspite of their willingness to regularise the service of the petitioners it is not in a position to do so in view of the instruction or ban imposed by the State Government. As stated above, several writ petitions filed during the years 1989-1992 by similarly situated casual workers of the Corporation were allowed by this Court and the decisions were confirned by the Supreme Court. This writ petition was also filed in the year 1990 but for some reason, it could not be disposed of along with those writ petitions. As stated above, several writ petitions filed during the years 1989-1992 by similarly situated casual workers of the Corporation were allowed by this Court and the decisions were confirned by the Supreme Court. This writ petition was also filed in the year 1990 but for some reason, it could not be disposed of along with those writ petitions. In view of the fact that other employees who came up to this Court daring the years 1989-1992 have been granted the desired relief, in my opinion, it wm not be in the interest of justice to deprive these petitioners of their right of being regularised merely because their writ petition could not be decided along with other writ petitions. 13. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularisation of their services in the light of the various decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court quoted above within four months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before respondent no. 3, the Chairman, Bihar Text Book Publishing Corporation, Budhmarg, Patna, Parties will bear their own costs. Application allowed.