IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.46 of 2000 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Registrar, Co-operative Department, New Secretariat Building, Patna. 4. The Additional Registrar, New Secretariat, Building, Patna. …Respondents…. Petitioners. -versus- 1. Ram Naresh Roy, son of Sri Maheshwar Rai resident of village Baghari, P.S. Sursand, District Sitamarhi. 2. Jai Prakash Narain Singh, son of Sri Braj Nandan Singh, resident of village Khadihar, P.S. Phulwarisharif, District Patna. 3. Laldeo Paswan, son of Sri Kishori Paswan, resident of village Bhikhachak Naharpur, P.S. Gardanibagh, District Patna. 4. Kiran Kumar Choudhary, son of late Godhan Prasad Choudhary, resident of Kila Road, Patna City, P.S. Chowk, District Patna. …Petitioners-Opposite Parties. ----------- 07/ 30.06.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. No one appears on behalf of the opposite parties inspite of valid service of notice upon them. 2. This review petition has been filed for review of order dated 26.10.1999, by which a Bench of this Court allowed C.W.J.C. No. 6555 of 1998 filed by the writ petitioners-opposite parties for appointing them on regular basis, and in regular cadre and scale and for a direction to make payment of their salaries on daily wages for the period they had rendered their services to respondents-petitioners. 3. This Court after considering the matter in detail disposed of the aforesaid writ petition by order dated 26.10.1999 with a direction that if any one had not been paid wages up to 2 October, 1997, he might approach the Registrar, Co-operative Department and if any representation was preferred by one or other writ petitioner relating to non-payment of wages up to October, 1997, the Registrar, Co-operative Department, would dispose of the same and admitted wages, if any due, should be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation and if such wages had already been paid, the authorities concerned would give details of date on which such wages had been paid to such writ petitioners. 4. The State of Bihar and its authorities, who were respondents in that writ petition and are here review petitioners, have challenged the said order on the ground that the writ petitioners had worked until September, 1994, hence they are not entitled to any amount after that period. 5. From the materials on record of the writ petition, it transpires that neither the writ petitioners nor the review petitioners including the State of Bihar and its authorities have stated any where in the pleadings that the writ petitioners had worked only up to September, 1994, rather the respondents of the writ petition including the State of Bihar and its authorities specifically stated in their counter affidavit that the writ petitioners had worked till October, 1997. Hence on the basis of the aforesaid clear statement, the impugned order was passed by a Bench of this Court. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to review the said order nor there is any error 3 apparent on the face of the record nor any material has been produced justifying review of the said order. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )