Judgment R. M. Prasad, J. 1. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ application is that although they have been continuously in the employment in the Minor Irrigation Division, muzaffarpur under State Government since 1980 and the services of persons even employed after them have been regularised, their services have not been regularised. 2. In short, the relevant admitted facts are that petitioner No.1 has been working as Pump Operator and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 as Chaukidars in the Minor Irrigation Division, Muzaffarpur since 1980. The said petitioners had also worked as work charge employees in the work charge establishment during the years 1973- 74 and vide order dated 31-10-83 (annexure 3)they were again brought under the work charge establishment. It is claimed that pursuant to the said orders, the petitioners joined on their respective places of appointment and started working. In course of their service in the said capacity, they were transferred from the place to another and presently the petitioner No.1 is working as Pump Operator and the other petitioners as Chaukidars at their respective places of posting mentioned in the cause title till date. 3. The Government of Bihar took a police decision for regularising the services of those work-charge employees, who were appointed on or before 1-10-84 and for the said purpose a Committee was directed to be constituted vide annexure-4. It is alleged that in normal course the petitioners services ought to have been regularised in pursuant to the aforementioned government decision, but it has not been done. The petitioners filed representations before the Chief Engineer, north. Minor Irrigation Department, muzaffarpur for redressal of their aforesaid grievance. The Chief Engineer, after examining the entire records of the petitioners, submitted a report to the Secretary to the Government in the Minor Irrigation Department, vide letter No.1753-Muz. dated 28.7.94 recommending to regularise their services. . A photo copy of the said letter has been annexed as annexure-6, it is alleged that the names of the persons at serial Nos.7 to 22 of the aforesaid report are much junior to the petitioners and their services have been regularised, but these petitioners have been left in lunch without any rhyme or reason. Out of the aforesaid persons, the persons at Sl. Out of the aforesaid persons, the persons at Sl. Nos.20 and 22, namely, Ram Ekbal Singh and Kaushal kishore Rai were brought in the work charge establishment along with petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 vide annexure-3. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, in which it is not denied that the petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 were also brought in the work charge establishment vide office order dated 31-10-83, contained in annexure-3 along with aforementioned Kaushal Kishore Rai and Ram Ekbal Singh. It is also admitted that vide decision contained in annexure 4, only such persons were required to be regularised, whose services were brought to the work charge establishment. However, it is stated that petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 were allowed to continue in the work charge establishment for the period 11-9-73 till 7-10-75, between 1.5.73 to 7.5.74 and 20-12-75 to 11-10-76 and petitioner No.4 from 29-11-73 to 7-6-74 and 20-12-75 to 6-4-76, whereafter they were brought to muster roll and were engaged as dairy wage. As such, they were not qualified for being considered for regularisation at par with Kaushal kishore Rai and Ram Ekbal Singh, who were brought to the work charge establishment with effect from 10-3-83 and were allowed to continue in the said establishment until their regularisation. 5. I fail to appreciate the said stand of the respondents. The petitioners, in paragraph Nos.11 and 12 of the writ-petition specifically asserted that pursuant to the order dated 30-10-83 contained in annexure 3, they joined their respective place of appointment and are working at their respective places of posting till the date. This fact has not been specifically denied in the counter-affidavit. As I have already noticed above, Kaushal kishore Rai and Ram Ekbal Singh have also been brought on the work charge establishment vide order dated 31-10-83, contained in annexure 3, whereby petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 were also appointed in the work charge establishment. 6. Further, from the report of the chief Engineer contained in Annexure-6, which has been issued on 28-7-94 I find that these petitioners are continuing in the employment. 6. Further, from the report of the chief Engineer contained in Annexure-6, which has been issued on 28-7-94 I find that these petitioners are continuing in the employment. From annexure 8, which is the proceeding of the meeting held for the purpose of regularising the services of the work charge employees I find that in paragraph No.5 of the said proceeding the names of the petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 were also considered, but the decision in regard to them was deferred for the meeting in which the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Muzaffarpur was to be present. Moreover, it is not disputed that the work from these petitioners are being taken continuously since the year 1980 and many persons engaged after them have been regularised in the service. As the work from these petitioners are being taken continuously since 1980, i. e. Now for about 16 long years, the nature of work cannot be said to be purely temporary and/or ad hoc for a fixed period, specially in absence of any such pleading in the counter-affidavit. 7. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the action of the respondents in not regularsing the services of the petitioners is wholly arbitrary and discriminatory besides being violative of the Govt. Policy decision itself contained in annexure-4. Accordingly, this writ-application is allowed, the respondents are directed to regularise the services of these petitioners forthwith and issue notification/order in that regard within two weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order. Petition Allowed.