IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1936 of 1998 1. AWADHESH RAM, son of Shri Gobardhan Ram, resident of village Nagarutari, P.S. Nagarutari, District Palamau 2. Ram Gobind Singh, son of Shri Ram Adhar Singh, resident of village Alampur, P.S. Shivsagar, District Rohtas 3. Swetambar Nath Dubey, son of Shri Baijnath Dubey, resident of village Pawai, P.S. Buxar, District Bhojpur 4. Rajiv Ranjan Prasad, son of Shri Ramadhar Lal, resident of village Kusumahara, P.S. Bikramganj, District Rohtas 5. Surendra Prasad, son of Shri Kanhai Ram, resident of Daudnagar, P.S. Daudnagar, District Aurangabad … Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Special Secretary cum Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna 2. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Dehri, District Rohtas 3. The Chief Engineer, Mechanical Division, Water Resources Department, Patna … Respondetns ----------- CWJC No.2475 of 1998 1. CHANDRAMA TIWARY, son of late Kapildeo Tiwary, resident of village Urda, P.S. Chenari, District Rohtas 2. Muneshwar Mishra, son of Shri Ram Nagina Mishra, resident of village Bishopur, P.S. Karghar, District Rohtas 3. Jai Prakash Prasad, son of late Panchu Mahto, resident of village Puramkama, P.S. Shekhpura, District Shekhpura … Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Special Secretary cum Engineer-in-chief, Water Resources Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna 2. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Dehri, District Rohtas 3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Siwan … Respondents. ----------- 11. 13.8.2009 While this matter was heard at length Yesterday, today when hearing commenced Mr. R.N.Mukhopadhya, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that he has been instructed by the petitioners to withdraw both the writ applications as the case of the petitioners is said to be pending consideration before the State Government as would be evidenced from letter no. 1234 dated 10.8.2009, a copy whereof was also produced before this Court and is kept on record of this case. 2 Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, SC 21, learned counsel appearing for Respondents however, would take a serious objection to condition withdrawal and would submit that either the petitioners should withdraw these writ applications or the matter should be decided on merits, inasmuch as the departmental authority had to face a very embarrassing situation before this Court and the Apex Court on account of previous litigation filed by the petitioners in C.W.J.C.No. 10366/2003 and M.J.C.No. 12/2005. In the opinion of this Court two things are very much clear in the case of the petitioners namely, (i) the petitioners were as work charge employees on Class-IV posts who could not have been, in the name of regularization of their service, absorbed on the higher Class-III posts or any other posts except the posts on which they were working in the work charge establishment. Therefore, any and every benefit given to the petitioners on the basis of an order dated 12.10.1981 or any other order on Class-III posts, in violation of the order of the State Government dated 19.2.1981 and its clarificatory order would stand recalled/withdrawn specially when they had been reverted 29.8.1983 and again by the impugned order dated 12.2.1998 on Class- IV posts. (ii) The petitioners’ regularization/absorption against a higher post, Class III post, having been cancelled way back on 29.8.1983 itself they would be deemed to have been reverted to Class-IV posts w.e.f. 12.10.1981 in the 3 light of the impugned order dated 12.2.1998 in this writ application and consequently the petitioners cannot claim any benefit of holding of higher posts/higher salary from 12.10.1981 and till today on account of any interim order or any other earlier order passed by this Court because ultimately they have not succeeded before this Court in the earlier writ application or even in this writ application. If in the background of these concluded facts the petitioners intend to withdraw these applications by taking a plea that their cases is likely to be considered by the department, this Court would accord such permission subject to the condition that the petitioners will have no liberty to move this court again for any part of cause of action or relief prayed in these two writ petitions. The objection of the learned Standing Counsel to fresh consideration of the case of the petitioner can always be taken into account by the State Government itself while taking any decision in respect of the petitioners in future. That being so, both the writ applications are dismissed as withdrawn in the light of the aforementioned observations. Let a copy of this order be given to Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, S.C.2, learned counsel for the State. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/