V.N. Sinha, J.@mdashHeard learned Counsel for the petitioners, Patna Municipal Corporation, which is the successor body of Patna Regional Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the PRDA) and the counsel for the Bishwas Board, which is now Bihar Rajya Jal Parishad.
2. Petitioner was initially engaged in the year 1981 to serve at Beur Treatment Plant of the PRDA. He continued to serve at the treatment plant until the plant was transferred to Bishwas Board in compliance of the instructions of the State Government contained in letter No. 67961 dated 26.12.1985, Annexure-1 as thereudner it was stated that after transfer of the pump to the Bishwas Board payment of wages to the employees serving at the pump be continued to be made by the PRDA. Pump was finally transferred to Patna Water Board on 26.8.1991 as is evident from Annexure-11. From Annexure-11 it appears that petitioner continued to serve the pump until transfer of the pump to the Patna Water Board i.e. 26.8.1991. After the transfer of the pump to the Patna Water Board the payment of salary to the petitioners was stopped. They, however continued to serve at the pump site and filed C.W.J.C. No. 4244 of 1987 for payment of wages. This Court under orders dated 9.2.1996, Annexure-12 disposed of the writ petition directing the authorities to pay the arrears of wages to the petitioners. It appears in compliance of the orders of the High Court dated 9.2.1996 petitioners were paid the arrears of wages for the period between 31.1.1987 till 19.4.1991, which is evident from letter of the Executive Engineer of the Patna Water Board dated 14.5.1996, Annexure-13. After paying arrears of wages to the petitioners it appears their engagement was discontinued and petitioners have filed this writ application for a direction to the authorities of the PRDA, Bishwas Board to regularize the engagement of the petitioners as private respondent Nos. 9 to 11 who also served on the same treatment plant where petitioners were engaged have already been regularized and petitioners allege discrimination by the authorities as while regularizing the engagement of private respondent Nos. 9 to 11, the authorities ignored the claim of the petitioners. When aforesaid submission was raised during the hearing of this writ petition this Court asked the learned Counsel for the petitioners whether petitioners were engaged prior to private respondent Nos. 9 to 11 learned Counsel candidly admitted that the three private respondents were engaged prior to the petitioners.
3. It is thus evident that private respondent Nos. 9 to 11 were regularized taking into account their period of engagement, which was longer than the petitioners. Petitioners, however were paid wages even after transfer of the pump to the biswas board and Patna Water Board until 19.4.1991, whereafter their engagement has been dispensed with. In the circumstances, I am not in a position to direct for regularization of the engagement of the petitioners in view of the direction of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of
