JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. In the instant petition, petitioners have prayed for the following relief/reliefs: “(i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to extend/adjust/regularize the services of these petitioners, who are all regularly working on the post of “Jal Chhajan Secretary” in several Panchayats of Bihar since 2013 as yet. (ii) That services of all these petitioners be either extended or adjusted in other departments in other schemes of Government or be regulaized in the light of two ‘Sankalps of General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar bearing Memo No. 3/M-78/2005 Gen. -Admi. 1003/Patna – 15 dt. 22-01-21 and also bearing Memo No. 3/M – 10/2020 Gen. 1658/Patna – 15, dated 05-02-2021 contained in Ax – 1 and 2 respectively. (iii) That the respondents be strictly directed to make payments of salaries/honorarium with all arrears, current and consequential benefits along with appropriate interest, cost and compensations, which are due, despite or regular working of the petitioners as yet. (iv) That the respondents be strictly directed to adjust these petitioners on the posts of ‘Kishan Salahkar’ or ‘Jal Jeevan Hariyali’ scheme or K.V.K. (Kishan Vigayan Kendra) or any other similar schemes of Bihar Government as per ‘Sankalp’ contained in Ax-3/1, 3/2 and 4. (v) That honorarium of these petitioners (Jal Chhajan Secretaries) may kindly be enhances from Rs. 2500 per month to at least Rs. 9620 per month so that Bihar Minimum wages Act, Amended on 24th Sept. 2020 may not be violated by the Govt. itself. (vi) That the respondents be strictly directed to provide all similar facilities to these petitioners under article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as it is being given to other contractual and outsourcing employees like Primary Teachers, ANMs, Tola Sevak, Kishan Mitra, Nayaya Mitra etc. (vii) That the services of these Petitioners be directed to be continued till attending the age of 60 years as other contractual employees like Primary Teachers, ANMs, Tola Sevak etc. are being given this facility by the Govt. of Bihar. (viii) That during the pendency of this writ petition services and honorarium of these petitioners may kindly be directed to continue and paid regularly and any corrosive action may kindly be stayed. are being given this facility by the Govt. of Bihar. (viii) That during the pendency of this writ petition services and honorarium of these petitioners may kindly be directed to continue and paid regularly and any corrosive action may kindly be stayed. (ix) That the respondents be directed to pay the appropriate cost and compensation to these poor petitioners for unnecessary mental, physical and economical harassment done by the illegal and unconstitutional acts of these respondents. (x) That any other relief or reliefs may kindly be granted in favor of the petitioners as it may be deemed fit and proper to the facts and circumstances of this case.” 3. The petitioners were stated to have been appointed as Jal Chhajan Secretary in several Panchayats of State of Bihar during the period from 2013 to 2017. They are asking for the aforesaid relief in the absence of any statutory right vested with each of the petitioners. The State of Bihar has not laid down any policy decision in respect of regularization of Jal Chhajan Secretary in Panchayats. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in identical matter, this Court has directed the authorities to consider for the regularization. In the earlier decision, the fact that there was no policy decision in respect of regularization has not been taken note of, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to benefit of any direction given by this Court with reference to earlier decision. 5. Apex Court time and again held that for issuance of writ of mandamus one must establish statutory right followed by demand before the competent authority in the case of Mani Subrat Jain V. State of Haryana reported in (1977) 1 SCC 486 read with Union Of India & Anr vs Arulmozhi Iniarasu & Ors reported in (2011) 7 SCC 397 . The petitioners have not apprised this Court with reference to any policy decision of the State Government in respect of regularization of Jal Chhajan Secretary in Panchayats. In the absence of policy decision of the State of Bihar in respect of regularization of the aforesaid post, the petitioners are not entitled. That apart Apex Court in the case of Secy., State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 elaborately dealt with issue relating to regularization of ad hoc employees. Certain guidelines have been laid down in the aforesaid decision. That apart Apex Court in the case of Secy., State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 elaborately dealt with issue relating to regularization of ad hoc employees. Certain guidelines have been laid down in the aforesaid decision. The petitioners do not fulfill one of the contention namely ‘appointment is prior to January, 2006’. On the other hand petitioners were appointed only in the year 2013 to 2017. In the light of these facts and circumstances, the petitioners have not made out a case. 6. Writ petition stands dismissed. 7. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition in respect of petitioner Nos. 1 and 99. He is permitted to withdraw. 8. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn in respect of petitioner Nos. 1 and 99.