- (1.) It is submitted by Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the order similar to the order dated 18.2.2008 passed in W.P. (S) No. 577 of 2008-Ranjeet Kumar Singh and others (Annexure 9) should be passed in the case of petitioners also. It is further submitted that the said order was passed on the basis of another order passed in the case of Tapan Kumar Banerjee in W.P. (S) No. 2733 of 2006 disposed of on 21.9.2006. It is further submitted that neither the order of Tapan Kumar Banerjee (Supra) nor the order passed in Ranjeet Kumar Singh (Supra) has been challenged or upset till today and, moreover the said orders have been complied with. Counsel for the State though submitted that the petitioners' claim cannot be allowed, referring to paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, but could not dispute the aforesaid position.
(2.) In the circumstances, I am inclined to pass the similar order passed in Ranjeet Kumar Singh (Supra) which reads as under:- "Petitioners are claiming regularisation on the ground that they are working in work charge establishment. In the Full Bench judgment Ram Prasad Singh and another vs. State of Jharkhand and others, 2005 3 JCR 9 it has been, inter alia, held as follows:- "17. I, therefore, hold that: (i) The work-charged employees, who have completed more than five years of continuous service against one post in the work-charged establishment and otherwise eligible, have a right of consideration of their cases for taking over their services in the permanent (regular) establishment, irrespective of their dates of appointment. But the work-charged employees, working on daily wages, not holding any post, are not so entitled......"
(3.) Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that one similarly situated Tapan Kumar Banerjee filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. (S) No. 2733 of 2006 which was disposed of on 21.9.2006 and pursuant thereto, order has been passed on 6.8.2007 giving him minimum salary at the lowest grade and, therefore, petitioners are also entitled to similar relief.;