JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is that the respondent authorities have wrongly down graded him to be a daily rated employee by misinterpreting the purport or import of the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2913/1993 (R) though he was not a daily wage employee but was working on regular pay scale in the post of a Clerk since the date of his appointment in the year 1988. 2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner it is necessary to notice some relevant facts which are as under: Earlier the petitioner had file a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2913/1993 (R) before this Court by challenging a order dated 05/08/1991 by which he was wrongly relieved to join Eastern Manganese Mineral Ltd. (E.M.M. Ltd.) on the ground that, he was the employee of the said E.M.M. Ltd. By the said very order one other person namely Satish Kumar Singh was also relieved on the said very ground. The said Satish Kumar Singh had also filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 3869/1992 challenging the same very order dated 05/08/1991. Both the writ petitions were heard together and were disposed of by a common judgment dated 19/01/2001 as contained in Annexure-6 to the present writ application. The paragraphs - 9, 10 and 11 of the said judgment are very relevant and, as such, are being reproduced hereinbelow: 9. Thus, it will be evident that none of the petitioners were appointed on regular basis following the procedure. They were placed and posted at one and other place mostly on daily wage, except for a short period of about six months. In the circumstances none of the petitioners having any lein over any post under the E.M.M. Ltd. once they were taken under the B.S.M.D.C. to perform work on daily wage, there was no occasion for B.S.M.D.C. to sent back their services to E.M.M. Ltd. as was ordered by memo No. 2866 dated 5th August 1991. However, in absence of work it was open to B.S.M.D.C. to retrench one or other daily wages employee, including the petitioners. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 5th August 1991 having passed without application of mind the same is set aside with liberty to respondents to take decision relating to petitioners. However, in absence of work it was open to B.S.M.D.C. to retrench one or other daily wages employee, including the petitioners. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 5th August 1991 having passed without application of mind the same is set aside with liberty to respondents to take decision relating to petitioners. The authorities may allow the petitioners to continue on daily wage or may regularise their services. In case the respondents decide to retrench one or other daily wage workman, they may do so following the principle of first come last go. 11. Similarly, if the respondents desire to make regular appointment against one or other post for which one or other petitioner is qualified, they will provide appropriate age relaxation in their favour and preference over the outsiders. 3. Subsequently, the petitioner again filed a writ application before this Court being W.P.(S) No. 2277/2002 seeking for a direction to pay him salary instead of daily wage for the period from 31/03/2001 and to set aside the order contained in memo No. 600 dated 31/03/2001, whereby the petitioner and one Satish Kumar Singh were allowed to continue on daily wage. After hearing the parties, this Court disposed of the said W.P.(S) No. 2277/2002 by order dated 20/02/2003, contained in Annexure 11 to this writ application, with following observations and directions, which are quoted herein in below: It appears that the respondents for certain period have taken work of Class-III posts from one or other daily wage employee. However, the petitioner cannot claim to have accrued any right for regularization of his service merely because he is working against a sanctioned post. In the circumstances, no relief can be granted for the present, as sought for in the writ petition. If the respondents till up any post in future, on regular basis, the petitioner may apply. In such case, the Respondents will consider the case of the petitioner for regular appointment relaxing the age bar, if so necessary. This application stands disposed of. From the above order, it appears that the petitioner, in fact, did not get any relief from this Court. 4. In such case, the Respondents will consider the case of the petitioner for regular appointment relaxing the age bar, if so necessary. This application stands disposed of. From the above order, it appears that the petitioner, in fact, did not get any relief from this Court. 4. In the present writ application, the petitioner has challenged the same very order dated 31/03/2001 (Annexure-7), which was already challenged by him in the earlier writ, petition, i.e. in W.P.(S) No. 2277/2002 (Annexure-11) and the order passed in the said case has already been quoted hereinabove. 5. Similarly, the other petitioner, i.e. Satish Kumar Singh had also challenged the same very order dated 31/03/2001 before this Court by filing a separate writ application being W.P.(S) No. 1221/2004. The said writ petition was heard by a Bench of this Court and was dismissed by order dated 24/07/2006. The operative portion of the order dated 24/07/2006, passed in W.P.(S) No. 1221/2004 is being reproduced hereinbelow: I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. There are two important relevant aspects; (i) the order challenged in this petition has already been upheld by this Court, by declining to interfere with the Same and (ii) status of the petitioner was determined as that of a daily wager in the judgment dated 19th January, 2001. Though the petitioner sought some clarification, but the Court did not return any findings and asked the petitioner to approach the respondents. The findings, already recorded by this Court declaring the petitioner as a daily wager and asking the respondents to allow him to continue in the same status, cannot be set aside in this second petition on the same facts and no contrary findings can be returned in the present writ petition. The order impugned having been upheld in W.P.(S) No. 2277 of 2002 at the instance of other petitioner and earlier findings against the petitioner, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Petition is dismissed. 6. The case of the petitioner stands exactly on the same footings. Therefore, in my view, this writ, petition has also got same fate and, therefore, this application is also disposed of on the same terms by directing that all the observations, findings and directions passed by this Court by order dated 24/07/2006 in W. P. (S) No. 1221/2004 shall be applicable in this case also. Therefore, in my view, this writ, petition has also got same fate and, therefore, this application is also disposed of on the same terms by directing that all the observations, findings and directions passed by this Court by order dated 24/07/2006 in W. P. (S) No. 1221/2004 shall be applicable in this case also. With this observation and direction this application is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.