IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.134 of 2007 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 15879/2005) 1. Amulya Kumar aged about 47 years, son of Sri Nawrang Prasad, resident of Bankipur, P.O. Fatua, Police Station Fatua, District- Patna, at present working as Barrier Operator (work charge) on deputation, posted at N.H. Division, Gulzarbagh Division, Guljarbagh, District-Patna. 2. Bhagwan Singh, aged about 52 years, son of late Fulaena Singh, resident of Sahpur Farm, Post Office-Sidhwalia, District-Gopalganj, at present working as Barrier Operator (work charge) on deputation, at Mahatma Gandhi Setu, N.H. Division, Gulzarbagh Division, Patna. 3. Suresh Manjhi aged about 49 years, son of Gena Manjhi, resident of Village-Miturekha, Post Office-Miturekha, District-Gopalganj, at present working as Barrier Operator (work charge) at Mahatma Gandhi Setu, N.H. Division, Gulzarbagh Division, Patna. 4. Ramanandan Singh son of Shri Nandlal Singh, resident of Village- Kwari, P.S. Manjhulia Estate, P.S. Bathnaha, District-Sitamarhi, at present working as Toll Guard Muzaffarpur Division, deputed on Mahatma Gandhi Setu, Patna. ..........Petitioners/Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Chief Engineer, National Highway and Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary to the Government, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The under Secretary to the Government, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Veshweshwaraiya Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna. .........Respondents/Respondents 5. Kali Ram aged about 43 years, son of late Ramsevak Ram, resident of Village-Fulwaria, P.O.-Sirdala, District-Nawada, at present working as Barrier Operator (work charge) on deputation Gandhi Setu, N.H. Division, Gulzarbagh, Division, Patna. 6. Ramdil Ram , aged about 44 years, son of Sri Banarsi Ram, resident of Village-Parraiya, P.S.-Parraiya, District-Gaya, at present working as Barrier Operator (work charge) Gandhi Setu, N.H. Division, Gulzarbagh Division, Patna. 7. Prabhu Nath Mishra, son of Raj Kishore Mishra, resident of Mohalla-Budhanpurva, Kaliashpuri, Chhoti Kaliasthan Buxar, at present working at Mahatma Gandhi Setu, Patna. ..........Petitioners/Respondents For Petitioners: - Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. For Respondents 5 and 7 :- Mr. Rajeev Prakash, Adv. 2 For Respondent State :- Mr. S.D. Sanjay, A.A.G. Mr. Akash Chaturvedi, A.C. to A.A.G.-12 ----------- 09 09.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This petition has been filed for review of that part of order dated 22.01.2007, by which C.W.J.C. No. 15879 of 2005 filed by the petitioners was dismissed alongwith C.W.J.C. No. 12794 of 2000 and its analogous cases by a single Bench of Hon’ble the Chief Justice Dr. J.N. Bhatt. 3. By the order in question dated 22.01.2007, altogether 86 cases including the case in question, namely C.W.J.C. No. 15879 of 2005, were disposed of and the claims of these petitioners alongwith others were rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that a number of case laws were cited by learned counsel for the petitioners and some of them were even annexed to the writ petition, which squarely covered the petitioners’ case but they were not considered by the learned single Judge and the aforesaid writ case alongwith 85 other writ cases were disposed of cursorily without realizing the intricacies and the points involved in the case of the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also stated that against the aforesaid order dated 22.01.2007 so far it concerns C.W.J.C. No. 15879 of 2005, the petitioners filed L.P.A. No. 314 of 2007, which was withdrawn by them on 19.04.2007 for filing a review petition against the said order. 3 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon a decision of a division Bench of this Court in case of The Union of India & Ors Vrs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna & Ors, reported in 2005 (4) P.L.J.R. 241 as well as another decision of a division Bench of this Court in case of Koshi Project Worker’s Association & Anr. Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors, reported in 2007 (1) P.L.J.R. 358 and also a decision of a single Bench of this Court dated 30.11.2005, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3223 of 2003, which was annexed to the writ petition, claimed that these case laws were directly on the issues involved and they supported the claim of the petitioners but the said decisions were completely ignored while passing the aforesaid order in question, which is sought to be reviewed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents the State of Bihar and its authorities (respondent nos. 1 to 4), vehemently opposes the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that all the aforesaid 86 writ petitions were disposed of by common order dated 22.01.2007 only on the joint requests of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and were disposed of by common judgment. 8. From the second paragraph of the said order, it is quite apparent that the said Court had itself stated that in most of the cases identical issues were involved, which clearly showed that there were some cases in which identical issues were not involved and hence in such circumstances all those writ petitions should not have been decided by a common judgment without appreciating the intricacies and the points involved in those cases. 4 9. Learned counsel for the respondents also relies upon a full Bench decision of this Court in case of Durganand Jha & Ors Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2007 (4) P.L.J.R. 259 but in the said decision the full Bench had specifically held that a regular establishment and work charged establishment are two separate types of establishments and the persons employed in those establishments thus form two separate and distinct classes and therefore two unequals cannot be treated equally and hence class-IV employees of the work charged establishments cannot be promoted to class-III post in the regular establishment as only class-IV employees of regular establishment can be promoted to class-III of that establishment. In the said circumstances, the said decision is on a completely different issue and is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 10. Reference in this regard may be made to a decision of this Court in case of Ram Tapeshwar Sah & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2006 (3) P.L.J.R. 376 which was of a division bench of this Court presided by Dr. Bhatt, J. himself, whose order is under review in this case, and in which the decision of the Apex Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi & Ors. reported in 2006 (4) S.C.C. 1 was also considered along with other judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court. 11. Reference in this regard may also be made to a decision of the Apex Court in case of State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. M.L. Kesari & Ors. reported in 2010 (9) S.C.C. 247 which has been followed by a division bench of this Court in case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Binay Kumar Singh & Ors. reported in 2011 (3) P.L.J.R. 547. 5 12. Learned counsel for the private respondents submits that they were the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 15879 of 2005 and are merely proforma respondents in the instant case and they fully supported the claim of the petitioners. 13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case as well as the relevant provisions of law, including the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of division bench of this Court, this Court finds an error apparent on the face of the record in order dated 22.01.2007 so far it concerns C.W.J.C. No. 15879 of 2005 filed by the petitioners. This Court also finds the said order to be without considering the principles of laws settled by the courts of law in their various judicial pronouncements. 14. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, order dated 22.01.2007 so far it concerns petitioners’ writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 15879 of 2005 is reviewed and recalled and this review petition is, accordingly, allowed. 15. Let the aforesaid case be listed before an appropriate Bench under the heading ‘for Admission’. Safik (S.N. Hussain, J.)