JUDGMENT : 1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for direction upon respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner on the post of Driver and for payment of salary at par with similarly situated employee on the Class IV post, since the petitioner has been working on the post of Driver under the Respondents as Daily Wages worker since 20.05.1987 and working regularly in the office of the Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Dumka. 2. The brief facts, as has been, delineated in the writ application are that the petitioner has been working as a Daily Wages employee on the post of Driver in the office of the respondent No. 4 and the respondent No. 4 has recommended for regularization of services of the petitioner, as evident from Annexure-2 and 2/A to the writ application, but, to the utter surprise and consternation, the petitioner’s services has been dispensed with vide order dated 22.10.2009, as per Annexure-1 to the writ application. It has been specifically averred in the writ application that in spite of the order passed by the authorities vide Annexure-1, the respondents have been utilizing the services of the petitioner, the petitioner has been subjected to hiring and firing policy. Being aggrieved by the non-regularization of services of the petitioner on the post of Driver after rendering more than 23 years of services, the petitioner has been constrained to seek redress before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the respondents-authorities ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services on the post of Driver in view of the fact that the petitioner has been rendering services since 20.05.1987 in the office of the respondents to the utmost satisfaction of the higher authorities and in the process, more than two decades have elapsed, therefore, the legitimate expectation of the petitioner has been belied. Learned senior counsel further submits that in view of the rising unemployment, the Government of Jharkhand in the Department of Building Construction vide letter dated 17.01.2005 has expressed its concern for regularization of irregular recruits/daily wages, but the case of the petitioner has not been considered and he has been subjected to hostile treatment and hiring and firing. Learned senior counsel further submits that in view of the rising unemployment, the Government of Jharkhand in the Department of Building Construction vide letter dated 17.01.2005 has expressed its concern for regularization of irregular recruits/daily wages, but the case of the petitioner has not been considered and he has been subjected to hostile treatment and hiring and firing. Learned senior counsel in order to reiterate his submissions, has also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Karnataka and others-versus-M.L. Kesari and others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 . 4. During course of hearing, learned senior counsel has referred to the supplementary affidavit, dated 03.07.2017, which has been filed in pursuance to the order of this Court dated 22.02.2017, wherein, it has been submitted that the petitioner has been engaged as daily rated worker since 20.05.1987 and working as Driver of Jeep of the Department and he has been working on the oral instruction of the Executive Engineer, Dumka and he has rendered more than 30 years’ of service as daily rated worker under the respondents and in each month, the petitioner is being paid 26 days’ wages, which is proved from perusal of Annexure-2/A and no increment has been paid to him or any extra allowance. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, controverting the averments made in the writ application. It has been submitted in the said affidavit that the petitioner was engaged as Driver for Government vehicle on the daily wages basis and he had been working from 20.05.1987 to 21.11.2009 and the regular post of Driver is not sanctioned for the Building Division, Dumka, so the petitioner was not working against the sanctioned post. The wages for that period has been paid to the petitioner and the allotment had been made available to pay his wages by the Government. After February, 2009, it was stopped and no allotment was made available by Department to pay the wages. It was not possible to take duty from the petitioner without paying his wages. So finally, he was relieved from his duties from 20.11.2009 giving notice one month prior to the date of relieving through office order of the Executive Engineer, Building Division, Dumka vide letter No. 1073, dated 22.10.2009 and presently, no work is being taken from the petitioner. It was not possible to take duty from the petitioner without paying his wages. So finally, he was relieved from his duties from 20.11.2009 giving notice one month prior to the date of relieving through office order of the Executive Engineer, Building Division, Dumka vide letter No. 1073, dated 22.10.2009 and presently, no work is being taken from the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the Letter of the Deputy Secretary no. 411 (bha), dated 17.02.2009 is about regular appointment against the sanctioned and vacant post and there is no direction to regularize the services of the person working on daily wages basis in that letter. It has further been submitted that a Committee, headed by the Departmental Head, had decided to regularize the daily wages employees against the sanctioned vacant post. A panel of those daily wages workers working from 240 days continuously before 1.8.1985 was prepared as per letter No. 5940 dated 18.06.1993 of the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department of Bihar and decision of Hon’ble High Court and since the petitioner had started working after 01.08.1985, hence, he was not included in that list as per Annexure-B. It has further been submitted that no work is being taken from the petitioner after 19.11.2009. 6. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein, it has been submitted that the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand has issued Notification No. 1348, dated 13.02.2015 (Regularization Rule, 2015) for regularization of irregular or daily wages employees. It mentions a set of eligibility criteria/conditions for regularization in its paragraph 3. Those irregular employees, who are found fulfilling the conditions or criteria will be regularized by decision taken by the Committee, as laid down procedure in the Regularization Rule, 2015 as per Annexure-A to the affidavit. It has further been stated that the petitioner had been relieved from duty by the office order on 22.10.2009 by the Executive Engineer, Dumka. He was working as a Driver and the post of Driver comes under 3rd Grade and so adjusting a daily wages employee after regularization in 3rd Grade would not be maintainable. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State on the other hand submits that since the petitioner’s services has been dispensed with since 2009, the prayer of the petitioner for regularization of services is not maintainable. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State on the other hand submits that since the petitioner’s services has been dispensed with since 2009, the prayer of the petitioner for regularization of services is not maintainable. 8. After having bestowed my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the records, the short question that emerges to be determined, is as to whether the petitioner being engaged on daily wages basis, is entitled to be considered for regularization in the light of the Notification dated 13.02.2015, which was meant for regularization of irregular employees on daily wages basis. In the said Notification, vide Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit, in paragraph 3, a set of eligibility criteria/conditions for regularization has been mentioned and the irregular employees, who are found fulfilling the conditions or criteria would be regularized by decision taken by the Committee, as laid down in the procedure in Regularization Rule, 2015. It has also been disclosed in the counter affidavit that the Building Construction Department had regularized daily wages employees or irregular employees, twice i.e. in the year 2004 and 2009. So far as the question of regularization, it would be apt to refer to paragraph 43 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others-versus-Uma Devi & Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , which refers to appointment on daily wages and casual basis and one time Scheme envisaged under paragraph 53 of the said judgment would definitely cover the workers continuously working for more than 10 years on daily wages. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Karnataka and others-versus-M.L. Kesari and others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 and the Regularization Policy of 2015, the case of the petitioner deserves consideration. 9. Since the services of the petitioner has been dispensed with effect from 22.10.2009 by the order of the respondent no. 4, this Court would not be inclined rather would be loath to give any blanket direction of regularization of the services of the petitioner but, if any step is taken for regularization of irregular or daily wages employees, working under the respondent no. 4, then the case of the petitioner be considered, taking into consideration the services rendered by the petitioner from 22.05.1987 to 21.11.2009. 4, then the case of the petitioner be considered, taking into consideration the services rendered by the petitioner from 22.05.1987 to 21.11.2009. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in the event of decision taken by the respondents for regularization in the light of the Notification dated 13.02.2015 coupled with the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others-versus-Uma Devi & Others (Supra).