IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.887 of 2008 OM PRAKASH W i t h CWJC No.4638 of 2008 INDU BALA SRIVASTAVA W i t h CWJC No.950 of 2008 ASHOK KUMAR MAHTO W i t h CWJC No.1115 of 2008 RATNESH KUMAR SINGH W i t h CWJC No.1152 of 2008 DINESH PRASAD KAPRI W i t h CWJC No.1336 of 2008 PREM KUMAR JHA W i t h CWJC No.1400 of 2008 HEMANT KUMAR W i t h CWJC No.1438 of 2008 RAM UJIYAR CHOUDHARY W i t h CWJC No.1469 of 2008 SANJAY KUMAR JHA & ANR W i t h CWJC No.1521 of 2008 BAUANJEE MISHRA W i t h CWJC No.1575 of 2008 SOHAN ROY W i t h CWJC No.1641 of 2008 DUNNI LAL DEEPAK W i t h CWJC No.1679 of 2008 BALRAM CHOUDHARY W i t h CWJC No.1723 of 2008 MADHESHWAR RAM W i t h CWJC No.1727 of 2008 BRAJ NANDAN ROY W i t h CWJC No.1790 of 2008 BIPIN BIHARI LABH W i t h CWJC No.1889 of 2008 ASHOK KUMAR - 2 - W i t h CWJC No.1901 of 2008 PARVATI DEVI W i t h CWJC No.2029 of 2008 AJAY KUMAR W i t h CWJC No.2065 of 2008 DINESH PRASAD SAH W i t h CWJC No.2169 of 2008 RAM PRAHLAD THAKUR W i t h CWJC No.2248 of 2008 BINDU YADAV W i t h CWJC No.2372 of 2008 BIRENDRA KUMAR W i t h CWJC No.2373 of 2008 SUNAINA DEVI W i t h CWJC No.2908 of 2008 PRADEEP KUMAR THAKUR W i t h CWJC No.3547 of 2008 DINESH KUMAR W i t h CWJC No.3616 of 2008 KRISHNA MOHAN W i t h CWJC No.3646 of 2008 RABINDRA KUMAR CHAUDHARY W i t h CWJC No.3707 of 2008 LAL BABU SINGH W i t h CWJC No.3708 of 2008 SATRUGHAN PRASAD SINHA W i t h CWJC No.3730 of 2008 SURESH PRASAD SUMAN W i t h CWJC No.4202 of 2008 CHANDRA KUMAR YADAV W i t h CWJC No.4474 of 2008 SUBIDYA KUMARI W i t h CWJC No.4589 of 2008 SMT.LALITA KUMARI - 3 - Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ---------- 3/ 9/7/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners questioned the termination of their services in the year-2003. The batch of writ petitions were allowed by an order dated 8.9.2003, noticing that they had been working for the last 10 to 20 years prior to the termination, in view of their long continuance equity was in their favour. The State questioned the order in L.P.A. No.946/03 impleading the petitioners as respondents. Before the Division Bench the State accepted to consider the cases of the affected employees impleaded within a reasonable period estimated to be about six months. In compliance thereof the State Government constituted a five member committee for consideration of individual cases. In pursuance of the same, services of certain persons, whose names find mention in the order dated 20.9.2007, at annexure-5/1 have been regularized. The petitioners are alleged to have been subjected to hostile discrimination inasmuch as despite their being similarly situated no final decision has been taken with regard to them or at least they have not been made aware of any such decision. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the disposal of these writ applications with directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in light of the orders of the Division Bench with directions to the Committee in question to take - 4 - an appropriate decision with regard to the petitioners within a maximum period of five months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioners thereafter. If in the meantime any decision has been taken with regard to the petitioners by the Committee in question and such decision, the respondents shall be obliged to communicate the same to the petitioners forthwith. The writ applications stand disposed with the said directions. KC ( Navin Sinha,J )