JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. Uncontrovertedly, the writ petitioner completed 8 years of continuous service, in a daily waged capacity, with 240 days of continuous service, in each of the apposite calender year(s), hence under the respondents. The afore term of completion of qualifying service by the writ petitioner, under the respondents, ended on 31st May, 2006. However, the order for regularisation of the hitherto daily wage service(s) of the petitioner, was made, by the respondents rather on 31.12.2006. The afore order of regularization was assigned prospective effect. 2. The writ petitioner contends, that since he had completed the eligibilizing term of continuous service, of 8 years on 31st May, 2006, hence, the respondents were enjoined, to on 31st May, 2006, put him on a work charge status or to regularize him thereat. Since, the afore relief has been denied to the writ petitioner by the respondents, hence, has led the writ petitioner to approach this Court. 3. The respondents, in their reply, meted to the writ petition, propagated that the right, if any, qua regularization in service, of the writ petitioner or of any daily wage rated workman, is, conditioned by certain fetters (a) inasmuch as it being subject to the workman concerned, occupying an appropriate reckonable notch in the seniority list maintained by the respondents; (b) and, prior to his being conferred the benefit of regularization in service, his being put on a work charge status. The writ petitioner's claim would beget success, only upon, his placing on record cogent documentary evidence, displaying that despite his on 31st May, 2006, holding the reckonable seeding in the apposite seniority list, yet his claim for regularisation, as, arose, on 31st May, 2006, being untenably ignored. However, the afore material is lacking. Consequently, when the claim for regularization in service of any workman, is, conditioned byhis evidently occupying a reckonable seeding in the seniority list, whereas, the afore evidence being amiss. Therefore, the writ petitioner cannot claim any unfettered right against the respondents, for his becoming entitled to claim regularization, in service w.e.f. 31St May, 2006, whereat, he completed the eligibilizing term of service, as, a daily rated workman under the respondents. 4. Therefore, the writ petitioner cannot claim any unfettered right against the respondents, for his becoming entitled to claim regularization, in service w.e.f. 31St May, 2006, whereat, he completed the eligibilizing term of service, as, a daily rated workman under the respondents. 4. Furthermore, it is also projected in the reply of the respondents, that the issue with respect to the conferment, of, work charge status upon Class-III, daily paid workers, who have completed the eligibilizing term of daily waged service, is under active consideration at government level. Consequently, the respondents are directed to forthwith finalize the afore process, and, if within the term(s) of the guidelines, as become formulated by the respondents, the relief of conferment of work charge status, to Class-III, daily waged workers, who hence complete the requisite term of eligibilising service, rather also renders the petitioner to become entitled to be put on a work charge status, w.e.f. 31st May, 2006, thereupon, the respondents shall proceed to, w.e.f. 31.05.2006 put the writ petitioner on a work charge status. With the afore directions, the extant writ petition stands disposed of. All pending applications also stand disposed of.