JUDGMENT : Heard A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P.C. Roy, the learned S.C.(L&C)-I appearing for the respondent-State. 2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard on merit. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction for regularization in service in terms of Regulation Rules framed by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha vide Notification dated 13.02.2015 contained at Annexure-6. 4. Mr. Sahani, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are vacant and sanctioned posts in Class-IV category. By letter dated 30.09.2006 the respondent no.3 submitted a report regarding vacancy position of sanctioned posts lying under the Collectorate of Garhwa District in compliance to the direction as contained in letter dated 30.09.2006 contained at Annexure-1. There are as many as 140 sanctioned posts in Class-IV category wherein only 61 employees were employed and 79 sanctioned posts still lying vacant under the Collectorate of Garhwa District. The petitioner no.1 is working since August, 1995 on the post of Anusewak. The petitioner no.2 and 3 are working with effect from March, 1996 as daily wage employees on the post of Peon. The petitioner no.4 is working since 04.10.1990 in the said District. They are working on the post of Peon in Class-IV posts category since more than 20 years. 5. Earlier the petitioners were moved this Court in W.P.(S) No.2545 2007 and the same was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to raise their grievance relating to regularization before the competent authority in accordance with law and upon satisfaction of all laid down conditions under Regularization Rules, 2015 which may be considered on its own merit in accordance with law. The writ petition was withdrawn with the said liberty. The counter affidavit has been filed in this case on behalf of the respondent nos.3 and 4. The said affidavit is sworn by the Executive Magistrate Dinesh Prasad Surin. In this counter affidavit, in paragraph no.13 and 14 the case of the petitioners are admitted. For the sake of brevity, the said paragraphs of the counter affidavit are quoted hereinbelow: “13. The said affidavit is sworn by the Executive Magistrate Dinesh Prasad Surin. In this counter affidavit, in paragraph no.13 and 14 the case of the petitioners are admitted. For the sake of brevity, the said paragraphs of the counter affidavit are quoted hereinbelow: “13. That with regard to the statements made in paras-6 to 12 of the writ petition under reply, it is stated and submitted that the same are matter of records. That the petitioners have been employed on 4th Class categories of service on daily wages basis without breaking the service except 4 days weekly holidays in every month but they are continuing service prior to issue of Circular 1348 dated 13.03.2015 by the Government of Jharkhand Ranchi and they are competent to come in the category of the regularisation of the service as they are employed for more than 20 years and they are serving regularly also in regular service. The facts contented in para-6 to 12 are the matter of record of the office and the Annexures are the letters and the order of the office. It is therefore the contention made in para-6 to 12 shall be considered in the light of the Annexure-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 5/1 of the writ petition. All the petitioners are working since 20 years back without the break in their service on daily wages, except under the rule they are paid wages of 26 days in a month but are rendering service regularly. 14. That with regard to the statements made in paras-13 to 15 of the writ petition under reply, it is stated and submitted that the same are matter the relating to matter of the W.P.(S) 2545 of 2007 which was withdrawn in view of the notification of the Personal Administrative Reform and Rajbhasa Department issued on 01.02.2015. The petitioners come within the category of rule notified for regularisation hence the petitioners prayed to allow for withdrawal of the writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No.2545 of 2007. The notification and the decision of the Hon'ble Court are matter of records, the requires no comment.” 6. The petitioners come within the category of rule notified for regularisation hence the petitioners prayed to allow for withdrawal of the writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No.2545 of 2007. The notification and the decision of the Hon'ble Court are matter of records, the requires no comment.” 6. In view of the admission of the case of the petitioners since in the aforesaid paragraphs of the counter affidavit, the respondents are directed to regularize the service of the petitioners in the light of the Regularization rules framed by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha as contained at Annexure-6, which has been interpretted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of “Narendra Kumar Tiwary v. State of Jharkhand” reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238 , within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt /production of a copy of this order. 7. The writ petition [W.P.(S) No.6672 of 2017] stands allowed and dispose of.