IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1557 of 2010 1. SIPAHI PRASAD S/O LATE LAXMAN RAUT R/O VILL- ATHARI GHAT, P.S BAIRIA, DISTT- WEST CHAMPARAN (BETIA) AT PRESENT WORKING AS DRIVER UNDER BETIA ESTATE 2. MAYA MISHRA W/O RAVI SHANKAR MISHRA, R/O MOH-KILA NAYA BAZR CHAUK, P.S- BETIA, DISTT- WEST CHAMPARAN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SECOND ACCOUNTANT UNDER THE ESTATE OF BETIA ESTATE Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE-CUM-CARE TAKER, BETIA, ESTATE, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE MANAGER, null BETIA ESTATE, BETIA ----------- 2. 29.07.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. The contention of the petitioners is that they were appointed by the Manager of the erstwhile Bettiah Estate and their services came to be absorbed in the State Government. They are similarly situated as the petitioners of CWJC No. 3560 of 2005 and analogous cases disposed on 22.1.2007 when this Court held in terms of the earlier order of the Board of Revenue that persons like the petitioners were entitled to their salary. Counsel for the State rightly submits that it is a matter for verification on facts if the petitioners were in fact similarly situated. This Court holds that let the respondents examine the claim of the petitioners in light of the judgment of this Court in CWJC no. 3560 of 2005 and analogous cases and if they are satisfied that the petitioners are similarly situated this Court directs the respondents to accord them similar treatment. However, if the respondents be of the opinion that the petitioners were not similarly situated and their cases were distinguishable on facts they would be at liberty to furnish grounds for this difference of opinion to the petitioners with an opportunity for them to meet the same by granting them personal hearing. If they still propose to hold that the petitioners were not similarly situated they are required to pass a reasoned and speaking order setting out the grounds for such difference of opinion distinguishing the case of the petitioners from that of the petitioners of CWJC No. 3560 of 2005 and analogous cases to facilitate judicial review should need arise. Let this exercise be done within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. Should the respondents hold that the petitioners are similarly situated as the petitioners in CWJC No. 3560 of 2005 and analogous cases, it is expected that necessary consequential orders shall be passed simultaneously without requiring them to file separate writ application for implementation of the same when this Court may take serious view of the matter. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)