Order : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners seek regularization on Class-IV Post on the basis of their claim that they are working on honorarium basis as Voluntary Workers on payment of Rs. 50 per month ince the year 1978, 1997 and 1991 respectively. 3. According to them, they have worked to the satisfaction of their superiors. Petitioners rely upon a direction passed in C.W.J.C No. 891 of 1998 dated 27th March, 2000, Annexure-5 by learned Single Judge of Patna High Court in the case of Siyaram Singh & othersvs. The State of Bihar & others to contend that the case of the petitioners should also be included in a panel of daily wage employees in Pakur Collectorate and should also be considered for regularization. 4. Annexure5, however, on the face of it, is in respect of giving employment to daily wage employees and not to the voluntary health workers engaged on honorarium of Rs. 50 per month. Petitioners contend that Arun Kumar Mishra had also approached this Court in W.P (S) no. 1381 of 2013, seeking regularization stating that he is also working since 1998 till 2001 and also giving reference of one Francis Soren, a driver who was appointed in the year 2005. The respondents had disputed the said contention stating that Francis Soren was working as a daily wage worker. The writ petition was disposed of on 22nd October, 2013 by learned Single Judge with certain observations. 5. The respondents contest the claim of the petitioners stating that the engagement of the petitioners is only as Voluntary Workers and not as daily wagers, on honorarium of Rs. 50 per month. Therefore, the petitioners can not claim the benefit of regularization scheme meant for daily wagers. Besides that, it is stated that Civil Surgeon is not the competent authority to undertake such a decision. 6. From perusal of relevant facts and documents on record and upon hearing the counsel for the parties, the claim for regularization on the part of the petitioners simply on the basis of being engaged as voluntary workers on honorarium basis of Rs. 50 per months, does not seem to be tenable in law. Petitioners' status cannot be said to be even that of daily wagers who may be entitled for consideration in terms of Government Circular or Regularization Rules which have been framed by Government of Jharkhand. 50 per months, does not seem to be tenable in law. Petitioners' status cannot be said to be even that of daily wagers who may be entitled for consideration in terms of Government Circular or Regularization Rules which have been framed by Government of Jharkhand. The nature of engagement also shows that it is voluntary in nature and remuneration of Rs. 50/per month can hardly be said to be equivalent to any remuneration to a daily wager or temporary employee for the purposes of consideration of regularization. The case of Francis Soren also appears to have been distinguished by the respondents in the case of Arun Kumar Mishra which is relied upon by the petitioner, Annexure-9. This Court is therefore not satisfied that any grounds are made out by the petitioners for issuance of any direction for their regularization in service under any Scheme or Rules framed by respondent Government. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.