IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15297 of 2009 1. SURESH PRASAD S/O BASUDEO MAHTO VILL- JAMUAMA, P.S. WAJIRGANJ, DISTT. GAYA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER MUNGER DIVISION, MUNGER 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE LAKHISARAI, DISTT. LAKHISARAI For the Petitioner : M/S UDAY CHAND PRASAD BINOD KUMAR SINHA FOR THE STATE ; S.C. 7 ----------- 2. 01.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner, who claims to have been enrolled in the Employment Exchange, was initially appointed as daily wage driver in Lakhisarai Collectorate. Certain steps were taken for regularization when the Commissioner of the division upset the order of regularization leading to a spate of litigation. It is apparent from the order of CWJC No. 3093 of 2004 that the name of the petitioner also figures in the order of this Court, when directions were given with regard to similarly situated persons. Following the same, this court in CWJC No. 12828 of 2009 has issued similar directions. Once the issue stands decided by this Court with regard to similarly situated persons, there is no justification for the Respondents not to examine the claim of the petitioner and to urge for time to file counter affidavit. This application is disposed with the direction to Respondent no. 3 to examine the claim of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid order of this Court inclusive of M.J.C. No. 2163 of 2006 arising out of CWJC No. 3093 of 2004. If they are satisfied that the petitioner is similarly situated, they are required to mete 2 out similar treatment to him. If the Respondent proposes to pass an order prejudicial to the petitioner, he is required to grant a personal hearing with an opportunity to the petitioner to satisfy him that he was similarly situated as those with regard to whom this Court has passed orders and thereafter Respondent no. 3 is obliged to pass a reasoned and speaking order setting out the issues and facts which distinguishes the case of the petitioner from those he relies upon as covered by the order of this Court to facilitate judicial review of the order of Respondent no. 3, should the need arise. Let the entire exercise be completed within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)