Judgment 1. Initially this application was filed by Laghu Sinchai Karamchari Sangh, Bihar, Zila Sakha, Bhagalpur in representative capacity as 77 Class III and Class IV daily wages employees working on various posts in different irrigation project, Bhagalpur Irrigation Division. 2. The Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department vide Office Order No. 77 dated 7.3.2003 directed for holding services of 77 Class III and Class IV daily wage as surplus and ordered for termination of their services. 3. This application was filed for quashing the order no. 77 dated 7.3.2003 as well as letter no. 401 dated 17.3.2003 issued by the respondents and for a direction to the respondents to regularize their services in compliance of the direction of High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7525 of 1998 and C.W.J.C. No. 8382 of 1998. In these two writ applications by order dated 3.11.1999 and 6.11.1999 directions were issued to Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Bhagalpur Division to regularise services of the petitioners. This direction was not complied as such M.J.C. No. 1295 of 2001 was preferred for initiating a proceeding of contempt. Petitioners case is that as a preemptive move and to frustrate the proceeding of contempt the respondents passed these impugned orders, for quashing of which the present application has been filed. 4. The writ application was filed on 28.4.2003, and immediately thereafter the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Bhagalpur issued an order contained in letter no. 511 dated 21.4.2003 (Annexure-9) directing to disengage all petitioners from their work with effect from 21.5.2003. I.A. No. 2114 of 2003 was filed on 12.5.2003 for amending the prayer in the main writ application. Additional prayer of the petitioner was for quashing the letter no. 511 dated 21.4.2003 passed by Executive Engineer, respondent no. 7. Interlocutory application was allowed and it forms part of the main writ application. By order dated 16.5.2003, Respondents were directed to maintain status quo as existing on that date, till disposal of writ application. The effect of this order was that the petitioners who were going to be disengaged from their service with effect rrom 21.5.2003, continued on the basis of the order dated 16.5.2003. 5. I.A. No. 692 of 2005 was also filed by the petitioner for grant of additional relief. The additional relief prayed in this application was for a direction to the respondents specially respondent no. 5. I.A. No. 692 of 2005 was also filed by the petitioner for grant of additional relief. The additional relief prayed in this application was for a direction to the respondents specially respondent no. 2 to ensure payment of current as well as arrears of salary/wages with penal interest to the petitioner which has been withheld since 27.3.2003. This application is allowed and it will form the part of main writ application. 6. Petitioners were working on various posts in the different organization project (medium class/lift organization project) for about two decades. It has been submitted by the petitioners counsel that the petitioners were working under various posts for about two decades. Main function of the Irrigation Department is to provide irrigation facilities to the farmers of the State to strengthen the agricultural activity which is the back bone of Indian economy. In the Bhagalpur Division all together 161 projects of irrigation, in the nature of medium type of irrigation facilities or lift irrigation system were functioning. Out of that 52 lift irrigation project and 7 medium irrigation project became non-functional due to the inaction on the part of the respondents. As per the decision of the State Government dated 29.5.1986 (Annexure-7) one Class IV employee is required in each project. In view of this decision, in spite of the fact that 52 lift irrigation project and 7 medium irrigation project become non-functional still 52 projects are functional. At least 52 posts of Class IV employees needed to be sanctioned for running these 52 irrigation project and the minor Irrigation Department in the Bhagalpur Division. For this only peitioners moved before this Court by filing two writ applications i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 7525 of 1998 and C.W.J.C. No. 8382 of 1998 in which direction was issued to regularise the services of the peititoners of those v,rit petition. Instead of complying the direction of this Court, the respondent no. 2 passed the impugned order dated 7.3.2003 in order to defeat the genuine claim of the petitioners. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Bhagalpur (respondent no. 7) vide letter no. 401 dated 17.3.2003 submitted a report giving details of various projects of the posts falling under his administrative control. In view of this report the order passed disengaging the petitioners from their work is misconceived and smacks of ill-motive. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Bhagalpur (respondent no. 7) vide letter no. 401 dated 17.3.2003 submitted a report giving details of various projects of the posts falling under his administrative control. In view of this report the order passed disengaging the petitioners from their work is misconceived and smacks of ill-motive. It has also been submitted that the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Minor Irrigation Department vide letter dated 22.2 2000 (Annexure-5) directed the Chief Enyineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Bhagalpur to regularise the services of the petitioners. In fact not a single daily wager is surplus, but in a most arbitrary manner impugned order contained in Annexure-9 has been passed by respondent no. 7. Petitioners have also referred letter no. 491 dated 12.4.2003 issued by respondent no. 7 giving current position of the employees working under his control. This letter demonstrates that none of the employees working under his control is excess (Annexure-i). 7. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 7. Main thrust of respondents in the counter affidavit is that the department has issued instructions to all Executive Engineers of Minor Irrigation Division that running schemes should be manned by regular employees and if sufficient regular employees are not available, by employees working on daily wages since before 1985 in order of seniority. Employees working on daily wages on schemes under breakdown for more than two years or which cannot be repaired in three months should be disengaged after giving one months notice. The Government had taken decisions in consultation with Law Department and Finance Department. Out of 1750 schemes less than 250 lift irrigation scheme are functional. Continuous engagement of daily wages employees on these schemes was resulting in huge expenditure and without any benefit accruing to the farmers of the State. Since there is no work engagement of employees and payment of wages is not possible. Further it has been submitted that the impugned order dated 7.3.2003 is self explanatory which indicates that out of 157 schemes only 91 schemes are functioning. 93 persons are required to man the running scheme but the number of employees including the petitioners are 120 hence there is no work and disengagement of the petitioners is the need of the circumstances. 93 persons are required to man the running scheme but the number of employees including the petitioners are 120 hence there is no work and disengagement of the petitioners is the need of the circumstances. Regarding non-payment of salary to the petitioners, it has been stated that due to no availability of the work, there is no engagement for them since 21.5.2003 and they are not being paid. 8. In reply to this the petitioners have submitted that for payment of wages of the petitioners fund has already been released but the respondent no. 7 is not making payment to the petitioners though in view of the order dated 16.5.2003 they are still working and in reality also work is being taken from them but the payment is not being made. 9. I find that the respondents cannot deny payment to the petitioners in view of the order dated 16.5.2003. By this order direction was issued for maintaining status quo. As per the order contained in Annexure-9 the petitioners were going to be disengaged with effect from 21.5.2003, prior to that the order for maintaining status quo was passed. Petitioners will be deemed to be working, therefore, non-payment of wages to the petitioners is arbitrary. This approach of the respondents cannot be allowed to continue The respondent no. 7 is directed to make payment of salary/wayes of the petitioner which has been withheld with effect from 23.5.2003 within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order considering their attendance chart. 10. counsel appearing for the respondents has referred two decisions in support of his submission that the claim of the petitioner for regularisation cannot be allowed. One of the judgment is passed in LP.A. No. 694 of 2006 and analogous cases and another is judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 1136 of 2004. L.P.A. No. 1136 of 2004 relates to regularisation of daily wagers in Minor Irrigation Department, Bhagalpur Division. The L.P.A. was allowed rejecting the claim of the writ petitioners holding that in view of the assertion made in the counter affidavit that there is no work and also there is financial crunch direction cannot be issued for regularisation. Counsel for the State has also placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi and Others*. Counsel for the State has also placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi and Others*. Paragraphs 45 and 53 of the judgment have been referred. In paragraphs 45 and 53 of the judgment it has been held that: "While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularised or made permanent, the courts are swayed by the fact that the person concerned has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with open eyes. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargainnot at arms lengthsince he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. If the Court were to void a contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the parties were not having equal bargaining power, that too would not enable the court to grant any relief to that employee. A total embargo on such casual or temporary appointment is not possible, given the exigencies of administration and if imposed, would only mean that some people who at least get employment temporarily, contractually or casually, would not be getting even that employment when securing of such employment brings at least some succour to them. After all, innumerable citizens of our vast country are in search of employment and one is not compelled to accept a casual or temporary employment if one is not inclined to go in for such an employment. It is in that context that one has to proceed on the basis that the employment was accepted fully knowing the nature of it and the consequences flowing from it. In other words, even while accepting the employment, the person concerned knows the nature of his employment. It is in that context that one has to proceed on the basis that the employment was accepted fully knowing the nature of it and the consequences flowing from it. In other words, even while accepting the employment, the person concerned knows the nature of his employment. It is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. The claim acquired by him in the post in which he is temporarily employed or the interest in that post cannot be considered to be of such a magnitude as to enable the giving up of the procedure established, for making regular appointments to available posts in the services of the State. The argument that since one has been working for some time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue him, even though he was aware of the nature of the employment when he first took it up, is not (sic) one that would enable the jettisoning of the procedure established by law for public employment and would have to fail when tested on the touchstone of constitutionality and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of daily qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment, In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub-judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per tne constitutional scheme." 11. In Uma Devis case the finding has not been recorded to this extent that the daily wagers working against Class IV posts should not be regularised in any case, rather principle has been settled. Instrumentalities of the Union of India as well as the State Government have been directed to take steps to regularise as one time measure the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years and more on duly sanctioned post, but not covered under orders of the court or of tribunal. The State Government has further been directed to ensure that steps for regular recruitments are undetaken to fill vacant sanctioned posts filled up. In cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed within six months time steps for regularisation be taken. Similar direction has also been issued by this Court in L.P.A. No. 694 of 2006 and analogous cases. 12. Admittedly petitioners have worked for more than 10 years. In view of specific direction in Uma Devi case as well as in L.P.A. No. 694 of 2006 and analogous cases, it is expected that the petitioners case shall be considered for regularisation as per the direction in this case. 13. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The letter contained in Memo No. 77 dated 7.3.2003 issued by respondent no. 2 and the order contained in Annexure-9 dated 21.4.2003 issued by respondent no. 7 are quashed.