IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.498 of 2006 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Bihar, Patna 3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Department of Forest, Bihar, Patna 4. Chief Conservator of Forest, Department of Forest (State Trading), Bihar, Ranchi 5. Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, 22/C, Srikrishnapuri Colony, Patna 6. The Conservator of Forest, Gaya Anchal, Gaya, Chanakyapuri, Gaya 7. Divisional Forest Officer, A P Colony, PS Rampur, Gaya 8. Range Officer of Forest, Rohtas Range, Dehri-on-Sone, Rohtas ……Respondents-Appellants Versus 1. SURENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA son of Sri Narayan Prasad Srivastava resident of Serganj, PS Sasaram,Distt. Rohtas 2. Upendra Nath Singh son of Sri Kailash Singh, resident of village Shakhra PS Rajpur, Distt.Rohtas 3. Mahendra Kumar Sharma son of Sri Suryabansh Sharma, resident of village Mangitpur, PS Kakriganj, Distt. Rohtas 4. Wasi Ahmad son of Ajijullah, resident of Mohalla Islamia Obra, PS Obra, Distt. Auranbagad …….Petitioners-Respondents ----------- 09- 29.4.2010 Heard Mr. Roy Shivaji Nath, learned Additional Advocate General no.IV for the appellants, and Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha for the respondents. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 11.11.2005, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in CWJC No.861 of 2000, whereby the writ petition has been allowed with the following direction:- “ After I had dictated the order, the learned counsel for the State cited a judgment of the Supreme Court for the purpose of drawing my attention to the proposition of law that a daily casual worker has no right in law either to be regularized or to claim an out of turn appointment. Surprisingly, this judgment could not be cited when the aforementioned writ 2 petitions were decided and on the basis whereof regularization was granted to others. By this order, the learned counsel for the State has not been able to understand, that I have not upheld any right of consideration of the petitioners herein but I have only upheld their fundamental right of being treated equally.” 2. Learned counsel for the appellants makes two fold submissions with respect to the order in question. He submits that the two groups of employees were really not similarly circumstanced, and indeed the learned writ court has not said so. He next submits that, major portions of the forest areas are now in the State of Jharkhand, leaving small forest areas. He submits in the same vein that, in view of severe restrictions on felling of trees, the Bihar State Forest development Corporation has been closed and, therefore, little work is left for the category of persons to which the respondents herein belong. Learned counsel for the respondents (the writ petitioners) submits that the learned writ court has not finally decided the issues and has instead directed the authorities to treat the present respondents in just the same manner as the petitioners of CWJC No.3042 of 1993®, and CWJC No.108 of 1996®. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the matter has indeed been remitted to the authorities to decide the question whether or not the present respondents are similarly circumstanced as the petitioners of the 3 said CWJC Nos.3042 of 1993® and 108 of 1996®. It is, therefore, open to the authorities to examine the issues on facts and come to the conclusion whether o not the two groups of employees are similarly circumstanced. It appears that the present respondents will have to be treated in the same manner as the petitioners of the aforesaid two writ petitions. It will be equally open to the authorities to take into account the requirement of the Department and/or the Forest Development Corporation. 4. This appeal is accordingly disposed of. ( S K Katriar ) ( Kishore K Mandal ) mrl