ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant is aggrieved against the judgement dated 27.06.2012 by which learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of the petitioners being W.P.(S) No. 4707 of 2003. 3. It appears from the facts of the case that the petitioners were appointed as daily wagers but were performing the duties of Class-III post of Clerks under the Minor Forest Produce Project, Ranchi Circle, Ranchi since 1985-86. In the year 1987 the Forest Development Corporation decided to regularize the appointment of the petitioners and a letter was issued to the respondent General Manager, Minor Forest Produce Project, Ranchi Circle, Ranchi on 4th April, 1987 directing the daily wagers to appear in interview and test. The petitioners successfully faced the interview which was held on 20th April, 1987 and names of petitioners were recommended by the Selection Committee for regularization pursuant to the interview held on 20th April, 1987. In the petitioners' case, no approval was received, therefore, they could not get the regularization order in spite of those efforts made by the employer itself. The petitioners then filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court being C.W.J.C. No. 870 of 1993. The said writ petition was allowed vide judgement dated 26.06.1997 with direction to seek approval from the Bureau of Public Enterprises and after obtaining approval from the Bureau of Public Enterprises, services of the petitioners be regularized. Following the directions contained in judgement dated 26.06.1997, the respondents issued appointment letter on 16.01.2001 and offered the pay scale of regularly appointed Clerks i.e., Rs. 4000-100-6000/- with the stipulation that initial basic salary would be Rs. 4,000/- per month. 4. After all above done in pursuance of the direction of the High Court issued as back as on 26.06.1997, on 01.09.2003 orders were issued by the respondents informing the petitioners that they have been appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk with the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- per month, therefore, their pay scale has been reduced to Rs. 3050-4590/- from Rs. 4000-100-6000/-. The petitioners, therefore, challenged that order dated 01.09.2003. The learned Single Judge set aside the said order, hence this L.P.A. 5. 3050-4590/- per month, therefore, their pay scale has been reduced to Rs. 3050-4590/- from Rs. 4000-100-6000/-. The petitioners, therefore, challenged that order dated 01.09.2003. The learned Single Judge set aside the said order, hence this L.P.A. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that it is true that Patna High Court allowed the writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 870 of 1993 vide judgement dated 26.06.1997 and before 16.01.2001, the date on which the appointment letter was given to the writ petitioners, one order already came on 20.12.2000 of the Finance Department which took the decision to divide the post of Clerk into two classes i.e., Lower Division Clerk and Upper Division Clerk with the stipulation that the post of Lower Division Clerk shall be filled up by direct appointees and post of Upper Division Clerk shall be filled up only by promotion. In view of the above reason and inadvertent mistake and ignorance about the Finance Department's order dated 20.12.2000, the petitioners were granted pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000/- instead of pay scale of 3050-4590/-. It is also submitted that admittedly the writ petitioners were daily wagers though they were performing the duties of the Clerks but their services were regularized only on 16.01.2001 and prior to that the cadre was bifurcated into one Lower Division Clerk and another Upper Division Clerk. The Upper Division Clerk post has been made 100 percent promotional post and, therefore, the petitioners could not have got the appointment on the post of Upper Division Clerk containing the pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000/- and, therefore, the petitioners were rightly put in a pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/-. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners vehemently submitted that the petitioners were admittedly performing duties of the Clerks since 1985-86 and their cases were recommended for regularization long back in the year 1987. They were entitled for regularization in the year 1987 on the post of Clerk. Earlier there were two cadres of Clerks which were merged in one cadre and, therefore, the petitioners were entitled to be treated at par with other Clerks whose services were regularized or who were regular appointees. Subsequently, the said cadre was bifurcated in two cadres; one Lower Division Clerk and another Upper Division Clerk. All earlier appointee clerks, prior to bifurcation, have been put in the cadre of Upper Division Clerk. Subsequently, the said cadre was bifurcated in two cadres; one Lower Division Clerk and another Upper Division Clerk. All earlier appointee clerks, prior to bifurcation, have been put in the cadre of Upper Division Clerk. It is submitted that because of the delay on the part of the respondents in getting the approval from the Bureau of Public Enterprises, the writ petitioners could not have been put in a lower cadre than the cadre in which they would have been, if the decision would have been taken in time in pursuance of the direction of the Patna High Court delivered in judgement dated 26.06.1997 in C.W.J.C. No. 870 of 1993. 7. We considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the reasons given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 27.06.2012. We may recapitulate the facts in brief :- The petitioners were appointed though as daily wagers, but were performing duties of Class-III post of Clerks under the Minor Forest Produce Project, Ranchi Circle, Ranchi since 1985-86. Their cases were considered for regularization by the respondents themselves as back as in the year 1987. The petitioners were asked to face the interview which they faced successfully on 20.04.1987 itself. The regularization should have been there and then but was not done because of the fault of the respondents and, therefore, the petitioners had to approach the Patna High Court by filing writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 870 of 1993. The said writ petition of the petitioners was allowed on 26.06.1997. The Patna High Court directed the respondents to take approval from the Bureau of Public Enterprises and after obtaining approval from the said Enterprises, they were directed to regularize the services of the writ petitioners. Therefore, merely because of the delay caused by the respondents, they cannot say that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefits for which they would have been entitled to, if the decision would have been taken in time, prior to 20.12.2000. Otherwise, it will be absolutely unreasonable in view of the fact that as per the judgement dated 26.06.1997 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 870 of 1993, even prior to filing of this writ petition by the petitioners, one another writ petition was filed which was C.W.J.C. No. 13197 of 1992 and that petition was also allowed. Otherwise, it will be absolutely unreasonable in view of the fact that as per the judgement dated 26.06.1997 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 870 of 1993, even prior to filing of this writ petition by the petitioners, one another writ petition was filed which was C.W.J.C. No. 13197 of 1992 and that petition was also allowed. Therefore, discriminating the petitioners from other employees in the matter of service benefit cannot be justified by any stretch of imagination. Therefore, the petitioners were rightly granted the same pay scale which was available to all those persons who were regularized and entitled prior to 20.12.2000 and have been granted pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000/-. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that petitioners are fresh appointees and they have accepted the appointment letter which was issued to them in the year 2001 and, therefore, they cannot now question the appointment given to them and at the same time get the salary provided in the same order. 9. We considered this aspect of the matter also but we are of the considered view that the regularization of the service and fresh appointment are entirely different things. The petitioners are admittedly working since 1985-86 and decision to regularize their services was taken voluntarily by the employer in the year 1987 and it was not a case that they will get any priority in the matter of appointment and will be offered fresh appointment. Therefore, in that fact situation, the plea taken by the appellant has no legs to stand. 10. In view of the above reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned judgement. Hence, the L.P.A. is dismissed. 11. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2286 of 2012 is also dismissed.