IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4606 of 2008 1. SURENDRA RAM, Son of Rama Ram. 2. Sunil Kumar Srivastava, son of Bishwanath Prasad. 3. Sapan Kumar Das @ Swapan Kumar Das, son of late Horolal Das. 4. Anil Kumar Rai, son of Late Nakul Rai. 5. Arun Kumar Jha, son of Umakant Jha 6. Upendra Jha, son of Surya Narayan Jha. 7. Surendra Rai, son of Mahendra Rai. 8. Dharmendra Jha, Son of Ram Lakhan Jha 9. Dhunrandhar @ Dhurendra Prasad Singh, Son of Late Lal Babu Singh 10. Parshuram Yadav, son of Bhikhari Yadav 11. Vijay Kumar Jha, Son of Satyadeo Jha 12. Anil Kumar son of Janak Paswan. 13. Pramod Kumar Srivastava, Son of Lal Babu Srivastava. 14. Pradeep Kumar Mandal, son of Kailash Mandal 15. Nawal Kishore Thakur, son of Late Triveni Thakur. 16. Jagdish Ram, Son of Late Sarikhan Ram. 17. Sanjay Kumar Singh, son of Hardeo Singh. 18. Pappu Kumar Ram, son of Sri Lala Rai @ Lala Ra. 19. Sudhil Kumar, Son of Late Jai Narayan Prasad. All Mess Staffs/ workers (Casual Labour) Zonal Training Centre, E.C. Railway, P.S Sadar Muzaffarpur, District, Muzaffarpur (Bihar). Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA through General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur, District Vaishali. 2. General Manager (Personnel), East Central Railway, Hazipur, District Vaishali. 3. Divisional Railway Manager, E.C. Railway, Sonpur, District Saran. 4. Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), E.C. Railway, sonpur, District Saran. 5. Principal Zonal Training School, E.C. Railway, Muzaffarpur. 6. Madan Mohar Thakur, son of Fulena Thakur 7. Raghunath Bhagat Son of Nand Lal Bhagat. Both Mess Staffs/ Worker (Causal Labour) Zonal Training Center, E.C. Railway, P.S. Sadar Muzaffarpur, Dist. Muzaffarpur (Bihar.) ----------- 6 14.03.2011 The present writ application has been filed against the order dated 10.11.2003 passed in O.A. No.1060 of 2003, which was also the subject matter of the earlier writ application filed before this Court, i.e. C.W.J.C No. 5552 of 2006, in which a Division Bench of this Court had directed the petitioners to make a representation to the respondent and the said representation filed 2 by the petitioners was rejected by the respondent authority. As subject matter is same, this writ application is not maintainable. At this stage, counsel for the petitioners seeks liberty of this Court to withdraw this writ application. This application is therefore dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to the petitioners to agitate the matter before the appropriate authority. Abhay Kumar ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)