JUDGMENT : Through video conferencing Heard Mr. Sumir Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. Heard Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7. 3. Heard Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 to 4. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs : “For issuance of direction upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith clarify and modify the appointment of the petitioners to the extent that the appointment has to be made from 09.03.86 with all consequential benefits with effect from taking over the management by the state Government in term of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and to provide proper scale of Sixth Pay Revision which is applicable to all the employees of the respondent-authorities as the petitioners have been made in the old scale which is not in-existence.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are only aggrieved by the fact that the order of regularization which has been passed by the respondents as contained in memo No. 834 dated 30.05.2009 (Annexure-5) and memo No. 833 dated 30.05.2009 (Annexure 5/A), though have been passed pursuant to the order passed by this court in W.P. (S) No. 3228 of 2001 dated 10.02.2003 and also the order passed in connected L.P.A. No. 150 of 2003 dated 12.12.2008, but the date of regularization has not been given effect to from the date the services of the petitioners were taken over by the Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation Limited. He submits that according to the order passed in the writ petition, the petitioners were entitled for regularization in service counting the period of their engagement from the date on which the management was taken over by the State government. He submits that according to the order passed in the writ petition the petitioners ought to have been regularized with effect from 09.03.1986. 6. The learned counsel further submits that in the L.P.A., the writ order was slightly modified and the State Mineral Development Corporation and State of Jharkhand were to jointly prepare a scheme for regularization of those who have been working from last 30-35 years, but the date of giving effect to regularization as mentioned in the writ order was never modified and therefore the petitioners are entitled for regularization right from 09.03.1986. 7. 7. The learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned orders contained in Annexure-5 and Annexure-5/1 are fit to be modified by holding that the effective date of regularization would be from 09.03.1986 with all consequential benefits. 8. The learned counsel during the course of argument has placed Annexure-9 dated 05.06.1986 which relates to petitioner No. 1 wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner was store in charge and since the mines belonging to Ms. Eastern Manganese and Minerals Ltd. has been taken over by the state government w.e.f. 09.03.86 as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the services of the petitioner No. 1 was retained, maintaining his condition of service unchanged. So far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, no such document regarding his engagement has been brought on record but as per the order of regularization itself, the petitioner No. 2 was working as “mines mate”. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the prayer of the petitioners and have submitted that the order passed by writ court was modified in L.P.A. No. 150 of 2003 wherein specific direction was issued for the purposes of framing a scheme for regularization for the daily wage employees and the same was to be jointly prepared by the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand and the Chairman, Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation. He submits that in view of the directions passed by Hon’ble Division Bench in L.P.A, the effective date of regularization was left to the authorities framing the scheme for regularization and accordingly the argument of the petitioners that the date of regularization ought to have been given effect from 09.03.1986 in terms of the order passed by the writ court is misconceived. 10. The learned counsel also refers to the counter affidavit to submit that the area of mining operation was notified as Koderma Wild Life Sanctuary vide Notification dated 25.01.1985 as annexed with the counter affidavit dated 18.03.2013 filed by respondent Nos. 5 to 7 who had also requested the department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, vide their letter No. 1089 dated 10.06.2011 to take back the units of the erstwhile Ms. 5 to 7 who had also requested the department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, vide their letter No. 1089 dated 10.06.2011 to take back the units of the erstwhile Ms. Eastern Manganese and Mineral Ltd. and they were being managed only on sustainable basis by JSMDC since the area falls within wildlife Sanctuary and no mining activity is to be carried out in the area. 11. The learned counsel submits that in L.P.A. No. 472 of 2008 arising out of a judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 5806 of 2002, the claim for regularization of a large number of persons have been declined by this court vide judgment dated 07.08.2015. The learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Managing Director, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Ajmer and Anr. vs. Chiggan Lal and Others in Civil Appeal No. 1875 of 2022 decided on 07.03.2022 and has referred to para 9 to submit that it is settled position that the date from which regularization is to be granted is a matter to be decided by the employer keeping in view a number of factors like the nature of work, number of posts lying vacant, the financial condition of the employer, the additional financial burden caused, the suitability of the workmen and the manner and reason for which initial appointment were made etc. The learned counsel submits that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly the same may be dismissed. 12. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the parties have fairly submitted that scheme of regularization framed pursuant to L.P.A. No. 150 of 2003 is neither on record, nor the said scheme is under challenge. 13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not in dispute that the pursuant to a decision of the state government, respondent No. 5 was appointed as a caretaker of the erstwhile M/s Eastern Manganese and Mineral Ltd. till regular mining lease is allotted to another lessee. 14. 13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not in dispute that the pursuant to a decision of the state government, respondent No. 5 was appointed as a caretaker of the erstwhile M/s Eastern Manganese and Mineral Ltd. till regular mining lease is allotted to another lessee. 14. It is further not in dispute that many employees who were working with M/s. Eastern Manganese and Mineral Ltd. had filed a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3228 of 2001 claiming to be daily wage workers and claimed that they have been working in the said company much prior to effective date of taking over i.e. 09.03.1986. As per the writ petitioners of this case, they were also party in W.P. (S) No. 3228 of 2001. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with following direction:- “In the aforesaid circumstances the respondents are directed to prepare a scheme for regularizing the services of the present petitioners and this will be done as and when Scheme is prepared. The scheme must be prepared within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioner will be entitled for their regularization in service counting the period of their engagement from the date on which the management was taken over by the state government and for period prior to that they will not be entitled for regularization.” 15. Upon perusal of the said order passed in W.P. (S) No. 3228 of 2001, this court finds that there was no direction that the date of giving effect to regularization would be 09.03.1986. It was simply mentioned that the petitioners will be entitled for their regularization in service counting the period of their engagement from the date on which the management was taken over. 16. It was simply mentioned that the petitioners will be entitled for their regularization in service counting the period of their engagement from the date on which the management was taken over. 16. The said judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 3228 of 2001 was challenged in L.P.A. No. 150 of 2003 and the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge was modified vide para 8 which reads as follows:- “After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment needs modification only to the extent that the appellant-State Mineral Development Corporation and the State of Jharkhand shall prepare a scheme for regularization of daily wages employees, who have been working for the last 30-35 years. The Chairman, Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation and the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, shall jointly prepare a scheme for regularization of services of the petitioners and take a final decision as expeditiously as possible and preferably within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment.” 17. As per the order passed in L.P.A. No. 150 of 2003, the scheme for regularization was to be prepared jointly by the Chairman JSMDC and Secretary, Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. The said direction essentially means that the scheme for regularization would also include the effective date from which the regularization is to be given effect to. This court also finds that neither the scheme for regularization has been brought on record by any of the parties and nor the same is under challenge. 18. It is not in dispute that the order of L.P.A. No. 150 of 2003 was duly complied and the impugned orders as contained in Annexure-5 and 5/A have been passed giving the effective date of regularization from the date of the office order i.e. 30.05.2009. 19. 18. It is not in dispute that the order of L.P.A. No. 150 of 2003 was duly complied and the impugned orders as contained in Annexure-5 and 5/A have been passed giving the effective date of regularization from the date of the office order i.e. 30.05.2009. 19. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited (supra) it has been held in para 9 as follows:- “It is the settled position that the date from which regularization is to be granted is a matter to be decided by the employer keeping in view a number of factors like the nature of work, number of posts lying vacant, the financial condition of the employer, the additional financial burden caused, the suitability of the workmen for the job, the manner and reason for which the initial appointments were made etc. The said decision will depend upon the facts of each year and no parity can be claimed based on regularization made in respect of the earlier years.” 20. In the instant case the respondents have rightly exercised their power and discretion regarding the effective date of regularization upon framing a scheme for regularization as directed by this court and accordingly no mandamus can be issued to give effect to regularization with effect from the date of takeover of the mines as prayed for by the petitioners. 21. It has also been brought on record in the counter affidavit that the mining area itself has now been declared as wildlife Sanctuary and no mining operation is being carried on, rather the respondent No. 5 to 7 has been requesting the state government to take over the mining area which were earlier belonging to M/s Eastern Manganese and Minerals Limited and taken over by the state government. 22. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case and the aforesaid findings, this court finds no reason to interfere with the order of effective date of regularization of the petitioners as contained in Annexure-5 and Annexure-5/A of the writ petition. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 23. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.