IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9413 of 2003 SURESH MISHRA, son of Sri Baleshwar Mishra, resident of village Makroi, P.O. Maheshpur, P.S. Pipra Bazar, District Supaul … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Bihar, Patna 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Flood Control Project, Patna … Respondents. ----------- 5. 8.1.2010 Heard Mr. Pramod Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “A) A certiorari setting aside the office order no. 85 dated 12.12.2002 as contained in Annexure 6 issued by the respondent Director, whereby and whereunder service of the petitioner as a chain man has illegally been terminated. B) A mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to re- instate the petitioner in service and to pay his salary as regular employee of the respondent State without any hinderance.” Mr. Mishra, however, at the outset has submitted that this case in view of the 2 earlier order dated 6.7.2006 was awaiting result of SLP Nos. 7233-7235/2003 and its analogous cases which have been ultimately dismissed by the Apex Court by an order dated 11th July, 2006. Mr. Mishra, therefore, had proceeded that the only distinction between the cases decided by the Apex Court and the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed prior to 1.8.1985 which is a cut- off date fixed by the State Government for considering regularization of the daily wages employee. Mr. Mishra, therefore, would submit that now when the State Government even after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition is reconsidering the matter and the several persons alike the petitioner have been taken back in service only on the ground of cut-off date, the petitioner too may be given liberty to approach the authorities for reconsideration of his case. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, would submit that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court and in fact the circular of the State Government giving 3 protection to the daily wages employees for the purposes of regularization who were engaged prior to 1.8.1985 would not be applicable in the cases like the petitioner, inasmuch as here it is a case of blatant of abuse of the power by the then Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Late Gangadhar Jha. Counsel would, therefore, submit that after the Supreme Court order when similar writ petitions have already been dismissed by this Court there would be no need to give any fresh liberty to the petitioner for reopening the chapter. In the opinion of this Court, when the respondents do not deny this fact in the counter affidavit that the petitioner’s engagement was made prior to 1.8.1985 and the circular of the State Government extending the benefit of regularization also do not make a distinction between the legal and illegal engagement on daily wages, the petitioner definitely would be entitled by at least for reconsideration of his case on the same parameters on which the cases of other persons have been decided by the authorities even after the order of the Apex 4 Court. That being so, this application is permitted to be withdrawn with a liberty to the petitioner to file a representation claiming the benefit of regularization on the aforementioned ground. It is, however, made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner and therefore the respondents would be at liberty to pass any order expeditiously but of course in accordance with law. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/