IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5652 of 2010 1. SATYA NARAYAN MAHTO, son of Late Basudeo Mahto, Resident of Village-Mohanpur, P.s. Dumra, Dist- Sitamarhi. 2. Bhola paswan, son of Late Dasai Paswan, resident of village-Murliadih, P.S. Bajpatti, Dist-Sitamarhi. 3. Ram Binod Singh, son of Ram Pragash Mahto, Resident of village-Bhasargot, P.S. Sitamarhi, Dist- Sitamarhi. 4. Ram Babu Mahto son of Late Khakhan Mahto, Resident of village-Bhasargot, P.S. Sitamarhi, Dist- Sitamarhi. 5. Pradip Mahto, son of Late Prameshwar Mahto, Resident of Villag- Mohanpur, P.s. Dumra, Dist-Sitamarhi. 6. Jaleshwar Mahto, son of Deoki Mahto, Resident of village-Mohanpur, P.S. Dumra, Dist-Sitamarhi. 7. Ram Babu Mahto, son of Late Ram Bahadur mahto, Resident of village-Mohanpur, P.S.Dumra, Dist- Sitamarhi. 8. Sandip Kumar, son of Late Bahadur Prasad, Resident of village-Gandhi Tola, P.S. Bajpatti, Dist- Sitamarhi. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 3. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi. 4. The Additional District Magistrate-Cum-Incharge District Establishment Committee, Sitamarhi. ----------- 2 30.11.2010 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are working on daily wages in the Collectorate of Sitamarhi, since last much more than 10 years. Therefore, he submits that the cases of the petitioners may be considered in the light of observations made by the Constitution Bench in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi and Ors. [2006(2) PLJR 363(SC)] in 2 paragraph-44 of the judgment. Writ application is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to file a representation for consideration of the cases in terms of said observations of the Constitution Bench made in paragraph-44. It is accepted that the representation filed by the petitioners shall be considered as expeditiously as possible. Prakash (J.N. Singh, J)