JUDGMENT: On repeated calls no body appears on behalf of the petitioners. It appears that on the last occasion also i.e. on 17.7.2008 when the matter was taken up in the admission matter no one appeared for the petitioners, hence, this writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, it was restored. Today also when the case was called out no body appears on behalf of the petitioners. Since the counter affidavit has already been filed in this case by the respondents and, therefore, this writ application is being disposed of at this stage itself after hearing the learned counsel for the State and on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the counter affidavit. The petitioners have prayed for direction to the respondents to give them pay scale of Rs. 950-20-1150-25-1400, which has been revised as Rs. 3050-4590 with effect from 1.1.1996 being the pay scale of Tube-Well-Operator. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Tube-Well-Operator on work charge basis by the Deputy Commissioner of Santhal Pargana on 28.8.1982, 27.8.1982, 22.8.1982 and 1.9.1982 respectively in the pay scale of Rs. 375-5-445-7-480. Subsequently, pursuant to the letter dated 2.2.1991 altogether 18 persons including these four petitioners, who were working in the Minor Irrigation Department, were regularized. The grievance of the petitioners is that against their names designation of post was mentioned as Pump Chalak in place of Tube-Well-operators. According to the petitioners they are being given pay scale of Rs. 800-1010-20-1150 in place of Rs. 950-1400, which is the pay scale of the Tube-Well-operators and, therefore, the petitioners are suffering monetary loss. Controverting the claim of the petitioners, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it is stated that though the petitioners were initially appointed as Tube-Well-Operator by the Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Bhagalpur, but as per norms and procedure of the Government a Committee was constituted for examining the case of regularization of those persons, who were working under Minor Irrigation Department, in the master roll and on work charge basis. Accordingly, the petitioners, who were working as work charge basis, were regularized. It is further stated that in the Minor Irrigation Circle, Dumka, there was no post of Tube-Well-Operators available and, therefore, the petitioners were absorbed against the posts of pump operators. Accordingly, the petitioners, who were working as work charge basis, were regularized. It is further stated that in the Minor Irrigation Circle, Dumka, there was no post of Tube-Well-Operators available and, therefore, the petitioners were absorbed against the posts of pump operators. It is further stated that the petitioners have never objected against their absorption on the post of pump operator and they accepted the decision of the Committee and they joined their posts. As a matter of fact they never approached any concerned authority making any grievance regarding their absorption as pump operators. No rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioners, therefore, the fact remains that as stated that in the Minor Irrigation Department, where the petitioners were regularized/ absorbed, there was no post of Tube-well operators available and, therefore, the question of appointing / absorbing the petitioners on the post of Tube-well-operators does not arise. Further when the petitioners were absorbed as pump operators in the year 1991 itself and since thereafter they did not raise any objection and it is only after a lapse of more than 10 years of their working as such they chose to file this writ application making the grievance as noticed above. In my view, no case at all is made out for any interference by this Court at this stage. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.