JUDGEMENT 1. There are 59 petitioners who all claim themselves to be working for Bettiah Raj for many a years. They are either Class- Ill or IV employees purportedly appointed by the Member, Board of Revenue, in the background that the State of Bihar is managing the estate as a Court of Wards after independence. The Bettiah Estate, its management and its control was taken over by the British Government under the Court of Wards Act as far back as on 1st April, 1897. Thereafter it has been managed under the provisions of the said Act by successive Governments. 2. Petitioners claim that by virtue of number of years they have worked coupled with the fact that it is the Member, Board of Revenue, who is managing the Estate, the petitioners have acquired a right and they ought to be regularized and given all the benefits of a Government servant. 3. The Bettiah Raj and the Estate thereto has not vested in the State of Bihar. It still has its own entity despite the dispute being dragged on from one century to the other. By no stretch of imagination or interpretation it can be said that merely because the Estate is being managed by Member, Board of Revenue as a Court of Wards, the engagement or employment of persons by the Member, Board of Revenue would give them the status of a Government servant. 4. Learned counsel for the Bettiah Raj has very rightly pointed out the observation of the Supreme Court which was rendered in the case of State of Bihar vs. Radha Krishna Singh, reported in AIR 1983 SC 684 . Para 269 and 270 are quoted hereinbelow which have a bearing to the claim of the petitioners. "269. Before closing the colourful chapter of this historical case we would now like to deal with the last point which remains to be considered and that is the question of Escheat. Para 269 and 270 are quoted hereinbelow which have a bearing to the claim of the petitioners. "269. Before closing the colourful chapter of this historical case we would now like to deal with the last point which remains to be considered and that is the question of Escheat. So far as this question is concerned, M.M. Prasad, J. has rightly pointed out that as the State of Bihar did not enter the arena as a plaintiff to claim the properties by pleading that the late Maharaja had left no heir at all and, hence, the properties should vest in the State of Bihar, it would be difficult to hold that merely in the event of the failure of the plaintiffs case the properties would vest in the State of Bihar. 270. It is well settled that when a claim of escheat is put forward by the Government the onus lies heavily on the appellant to prove the absence of any heir of the respondent anywhere in the world! Normally, the court frowns on the estate being taken by escheat unless the essential conditions for escheat are fully and completely satisfied. Further, before the plea of escheat can be entertained, there must be a public notice given by the Government so that if there is any claimant anywhere in the country or for that matter in the world, he may come forward to contest the claim of the State. In the instant case, the State of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh merely satisfied themselves by appearing to oppose the , claims cf the plaintiffs-respondents. Even if they succeed in showing that the plaintiffs were not the nearest reversioners of the late Maharaja, it does not follow as a logical corollary that the failure of the plaintiffs claim would lead to the irresistible inference that there is no other heir who could at any time come forward to claim the properties." 5. Reading of the above passage from the decision of the Honble Supreme Court it is evident that the State of Bihar is far from acquiring control over the property of Bettiah Raj or its Estate. 6. The factual and legal position has not undergone a change since the Honble Supreme Court rendered its decision in 1983. Reading of the above passage from the decision of the Honble Supreme Court it is evident that the State of Bihar is far from acquiring control over the property of Bettiah Raj or its Estate. 6. The factual and legal position has not undergone a change since the Honble Supreme Court rendered its decision in 1983. If that be so, the effort on the part of the petitioners to get regularization under the State of Bihar and derive benefits as a Government servant must fail. 7. Writ is dismissed being devoid of merit.