five continuous years they had not worked for 240 days in every year. This court noticed the history of such a Resolution. It noted that on 01.08.1985, State had put a ban on employment on daily wage. Therefore, the first decision taken by the State in respect of regularization had been that all those who had worked for more than 240 days prior to 01.08.1985 had to be regularized. There was no restriction of 240 days per year for a period of five years. It appears that thereafter due to exigency of work and no regular recruitment, daily wagers were continued to be employed. They were not being considered for regularization, and as such, the Workers Trade Union started agitation and ultimately there was an agreement as between the Workers Trade Union and the State Government, whereby this cut off date of 01.08.1985 was extended to 11.12.1990. Thus, those daily wagers who had worked for more than 240 days prior to 11.12.1990 were liable to be regularized. This was apparent from the decision of the State Government dated 18.06.1993 which was then followed by Resolution dated 10.05.2005. The appellants were contending that in view of this they have right to be regularized. Considering the aforesaid history, there cannot be any doubt that as the appellants had worked for almost or over 1000 days prior to 1990, they were entitled to the benefit of this executive decision, but it seems while the matter was being considered by the Committee, the Government decision as envisaged by Resolution no. 639 dated 16.03.2006 came up. Keeping in mind the history, if we look at this Resolution, we find that it is in two parts, the first part clearly refers to the first cut off date of 01.08..1985 as extended to
