JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged part of Office Order as contained in Memo No.2740 dated 26.10.2013, whereby the respondent - State gave fresh appointment to the petitioner but has not regularized his service. 3. The petitioner had earlier approached this High Court in W.P.(S) No.2548 of 2007. In the said writ petition, the petitioner claimed regularization as he was working since 28.07.1983. He had also challenged the Office Order, whereby his claim for regularization was rejected. 3.1. While hearing the aforesaid writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2548 of 2007 along with another analogues case, the Coordinate Bench of this Court while allowing the writ petition vide order dated 16.04.2009, had held that the petitioners were engaged on daily wages prior to the prescribed cut-off date i.e. 01.08.1985, and have also worked for 26 to 27 days in a month and have completed more than 240 days in a calendar year prior to the cut-off date i.e. 01.08.1985 and they were entitled for regularization. 3.2. Further, in para-11 of the aforesaid order, it had been specifically held that the petitioners are working uninterruptedly for last 26 years. Considering the fact that the petitioners were working for last 26 years uninterruptedly, the Coordinate Bench allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization within a period of six months. 4. The respondents without regularizing the services of the petitioner, issued a fresh appointment letter vide Memo No.2740 dated 26.10.2013. Be it noted that the respondent - State had challenged the order passed in the writ petition in the Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No.297 of 2009 but the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 09.09.2009 did not interfere with the same, holding that only liberty was granted to the respondent - State to consider the case of the petitioner and no adverse order has been passed against the respondent - State, and thus dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal. 5. In the Letters Patent Appeal, the finding of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the petitioner was working for more than 26 to 27 years regularly and had completed 240 days as a Daily Wager in a calendar year, was not disturbed. 5. In the Letters Patent Appeal, the finding of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the petitioner was working for more than 26 to 27 years regularly and had completed 240 days as a Daily Wager in a calendar year, was not disturbed. Rather, the Division Bench had held in the penultimate paragraph that if the respondent (petitioner herein) had filed an Appeal claiming regularization, perhaps he would have had a water-tight case of regularization since he had been discharging duties in daily wages for last 26 years and admittedly the statutory requirement of completion of 240 days as a Daily Wager would have held him entitled for regularization in service, but the respondent (petitioner herein) has not filed any Appeal. This finding of the Division Bench also fortifies the fact that the petitioner had worked for more than 26 years. 6. Since the petitioner has worked for more than 26 years, he could not have been issued a fresh appointment letter, rather in terms of the order and judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge and the Division Bench of this Court, he should have been regularized. Thus, the action of the respondents in not regularizing the petitioner, cannot be sustained. The respondents now cannot take a plea that the petitioner was not qualified to be regularized, as the Coordinate Bench and the Division Bench of this Court had also considered all these aspects and the order was passed in favour of the petitioner. 7. Thus, the part of Office Order as contained in Memo No.2740 dated 26.10.2013, whereby the petitioner has been given fresh appointment, is set aside. 7.1. The respondents are directed to issue a fresh order of regularization in favour of the petitioner from the date he was initially appointed and recalculate the retiral benefits of the petitioner, considering that the petitioner stood regularized from the date of his appointment. 7.2. The monetary benefits should be disbursed to the petitioner within ten weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed.