JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The writ petitioner was initially engaged, on, a, daily wage basis in the year 1982. However, fictional breaks, with a malafide intent, are alleged to became, administered in his service in the afore capacity, under, the respondents. However, after the year 1994, the writ petitioner, avers that since then and upto the year 2002, his rendering in each, of, the afore calendar years, of, service under the respondents, on a daily wage basis hence 240 days, of, continuous service, whereupon he claims that in consonance with the relevant norms, carried in the apposite policy, as become formulated, for the benefit, of, regularization becoming conferred, upon him, he became entitled to be regularized in service w.e.f. 1.1.2002. 2. The merit and vigor of the afore made espousals are enjoined to be adjudged, from a deep discernings being made upon the mandays chart appertaining, to the service on a daily wage basis becoming rendered by the writ petitioner, under, the respondents. The apposite mandays chart, becomes appended with the reply, filed to the writ petition, by the respondents, and, thereto Annexure R1 becomes designated, and, a perusal thereof (i) underscores that from the year 1994, continuously for a tenure of eight years commencing therefrom, and, ending in the year 2000, his in each of the afore tenure of eight years, rather rendering in each of them, 240 days of continuous service, under, the respondents. However, the benefit of regularization in service, did not, thereat become conferred upon the writ petitioner. 3. Be that as it may, the respondents became enjoined to validate their afore inaction to thereat confer the benefit of regularization in service, upon, the writ petitioner. The reasons qua therewith, becomes comprised, in an unchallenged order, made by the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal, upon, OA(M) No. 130 of 2007, order whereof is appended with the reply, as, Annexure A1, (ii) and, perusal whereof, discloses that directions became meted, upon, the respondents, to appoint the writ petitioner on a work charge basis, w.e.f. 1.1.2004. The afore order made by the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal, obviously for want of any challenge, being meted thereto, acquires conclusivity, and, it hence bars and estops the writ petitioner to claim that he prior to its making became entitled to stake a valid claim for his hitherto service on a daily wage basis, becoming mutated into regularized employment, under, the respondents. 4. 4. Even otherwise, the writ petitioner, would become entitled, to even subsequent to the year 2004, whereat orders supra, became pronounced by the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal, upon, OA(M) No. 130 of 2007, hence stake a valid claim, for, his being meted the benefit, of, regularization in service, (i) upon, his establishing that he thereat, was positioned at an appropriate reckonable notch, of, seniority, hence in the seniority list maintained, for the afore purpose, by the respondents, and, wherethrough, the postponing(s) therefrom, of, his regularization in service, would acquire the demerit, of, invalidation. However, the writ petitioner, has not appended, with the writ petition the afore apposite seniority list, for, his therefrom establishing, his occurring thereat, at the apposite reckonable notch, of, seniority in the seniority list, hence obviously at a phase earlier than the one whereat, the, benefit, in/of regularization of service became conferred, upon, him. In sequel, wants thereof, begets a conclusion, visavis, the conferment upon him the status of regularization, from, his initial engagement on a daily wage basis under the respondents, hence was made upon valid reckonings being made visavis, the, notch of his seniority, as occurred in the apposite seniority list, hence maintained by the respondents. 5. In view of the above observations, there is no merit in the instant writ petition, and, the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications, also stand disposed of.