JUDGMENT S N Pathak, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties. These four petitioners state that they have been engaged for 12 years on daily wage basis under Water Resources Department, Barrage Circle, Mohammadganj, Palamau. Counsel for the petitioners submits that though these petitioners have approached this Court for appointment on the strength of their engagement for 12 years but the State Government has made Regularization Rules 2015, notified by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, vide Memo No.1348, dated 13.2.2015 in terms of the direction passed in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. Vs. Uma Devi & ors , (2006) 4 SCC 1 . Therefore, petitioners'' case should be considered by the competent authority under the respondent-Department for absorption/regularization in terms of the Regularization Rules, 2015 on satisfaction of the laid down conditions. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this writ application is squarely covered by the order passed on 02.12.2015 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Hon''ble Court in W.P.(S).No.7858 of 2006. Learned counsel further submits that this case may be disposed of in terms of orders passed in the aforesaid case. 3. No counter-affidavit has been filed. But, learned counsel for the respondents taken a plea that petitioners have not been in continuous engagement. They were engaged as daily wage seasonal labourers for specified period in a year. Since the work was completed, labourers were terminated. They have not completed continuous 240 days engagement in a calendar year. Therefore, they cannot claim appointment on regular basis. 4. However, learned counsel for the respondents very fairly submits that if the case of the present petitioners are found same and similar to the cases of the petitioners in W.P.(S).No.7858 of 2006, the present petitioners are also entitled for the same benefits, in accordance with law. 5. In view of the fair submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ application is being disposed of in terms of the directions issued by this Hon''ble Court in W.P.(S).No.7858 of 2006. 6. 5. In view of the fair submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ application is being disposed of in terms of the directions issued by this Hon''ble Court in W.P.(S).No.7858 of 2006. 6. Certain directions were given in W.P.(S) No. 7858 of 2006 by a coordinate Bench of this Court and if the petitioners therein have satisfied the respondents beyond any reasonable doubt and the respondents have acted in favour of the petitioners therein, and upon examining the case of present petitioners, if it is found that the present petitioners are at similar footing to that of petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 7858 of 2006, similar relief may be granted to present petitioners also. 7. It goes without saying that the respondents shall complete the entire exercise of extending the similar benefits to present petitioners, if eligible, within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if they are not found entitled for the same, a reasoned order may communicated to them within a further period of two weeks. 8. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.