JUDGMENT : Petitioners in all the writ applications except CWJC No. 11140 of 2008 are seeking a direction to the respondents for regularisation of their services under Gaya Forest Division, Gaya on the ground that they have worked under the division as daily wage employees for several years beginning from 1980 to 1990. Petitioner of CWJC No. 11140 of 2008 has sought for a direction for payment of daily wages which he is entitled to and has remained unpaid for the period 16.05.1994 to 10.06.1996. He has also sought for a direction to the respondents to regularize his services. 2. It is their case that there are 500 posts sanctioned for Class-IV employees under Gaya Forest Division and there are 100 posts still lying vacant. In CWJC No. 8389 of 2008, it has been stated that the petitioner had been working in different capacities and had mostly been handling financial matters to collect rent etc. 3. Similar plea has been taken by the petitioner in CWJC No. 10194 of 2008 wherein it has been stated, inter alia, that a panel was prepared by the respondents for regularizing the services of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons in which his name figures. Identical plea has been taken by the petitioner of CWJC No. 8775 of 2008. In CWJC No. 9889 of 2008, the petitioner has claimed that in the list prepared for regularization of daily wage workers under Gaya Forest Division, Gaya, the petitioner’s name figures at serial no. 247. 4. This is to be noted that the petitioners of CWJC No. 8425 of 2008 and CWJC No. 8875 of 2008 have, as on date, attained the age of 62 years and, therefore, their claim to be appointed on regular basis on the strength of their daily wage employment, as asserted in the writ application, has become infructuous and stands disposed of accordingly. 5. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has placed heavy reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi(3) and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and has submitted that the respondents were duty bound to consider cases for regularization by one time measure. Reliance has also been placed on another decision of Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka and others vs. M.L. Kesari reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 . Reliance has also been placed on another decision of Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka and others vs. M.L. Kesari reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 . 6. So far as the cases, which relate to Gaya Forest Division are concerned, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents State of Bihar it has been stated that the petitioners were engaged temporarily as per need for performing various works under the Forestry Schemes and they were never engaged against any sanctioned vacant Class-III or Class-IV posts. It has also been stated that the petitioners have been paid their wages in accordance with their entitlements. It has further been stated that in the Forest Department plantation is carried out on project basis under different schemes and for implementation of these works, labourers on daily wages are engaged and at the end of the scheme and completion of works the engaged labourers are disengaged. Their services are used as cattle watchers to protect the plants from cattle grazing, for digging of pits and other connected plantation activities like taking care of plants raised in nurseries. All such works are purely temporary and end with the closure of the respective schemes. 7. In the case, which relates to Jamui Forest Division also, similar plea has been taken. 8. There is one aspect, which goes to the root of the matter, in respect of which there is absolutely no dispute. This is an admitted fact that engagement of the petitioners at any point of time was not in conformity with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. There was absolutely no advertisement nor any selection procedure adopted at the time of their initial engagement. The Supreme Court has recently decided in case of The State of Bihar and others vs. Devendra Sharma reported in 2019 (14) SCALE 178 dealing with the questions of regularization of services of daily wage employees and has held in paragraph 44 thereof as follows :- “44. In view of the aforesaid judgments, it cannot be said that the appointment of the employees in the present set of appeals were irregular appointments. Such appointments are illegal appointment in terms of the ratio of Supreme Court judgment in Uma Devi. In view of the aforesaid judgments, it cannot be said that the appointment of the employees in the present set of appeals were irregular appointments. Such appointments are illegal appointment in terms of the ratio of Supreme Court judgment in Uma Devi. As such appointments were made without any sanctioned post, without any advertisement giving opportunity to all eligible candidates to apply and seek public employment and without any method of recruitment. Such appointments were backdoor entries, an act of nepotism and favouritism and thus from any judicial standards cannot be said to be irregular appointments but are illegal appointments in wholly arbitrary process.” 9. The Court has taken note of the Supreme Court’s decision in case of Uma Devi (supra), M.L. Kesari (supra) and a series of subsequent decisions. In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Devendra Sharma (supra), no relief in the nature of regularization of services of these petitioners can be granted since they have miserably failed to establish their right and to satisfy the Court that their initial engagement was after due notice/ advertisement, inviting applications and following a selection procedure. 10. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are entitled for equal pay at par with regular Class-III/ Class IV employees. If according to the petitioners, they have not been paid their daily wages for the period they have discharged their work, they shall be at liberty to approach the competent authorities by making representations, which shall be considered and disposed of in correct perspective. The respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners, if they are found to be still working, for payment of their wages applying the principle of equal pay for equal work. 11. These applications stand disposed of accordingly.