IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17637 of 2009 1. KALESHWAR PASWAN S/O LATE BHOLA PASWAN WORKING AS KEY MAN CUM CHAUKIDAR, PHED SECTION TEGHRA, S.D.O. BARAUNI, P.S. TEGHRA PHED DIVISION BEGUSARAI, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI 2. SUBHASH CHANDRA BHARDWAJ S/O YUGAL PRASAD SINGH KEYMAN, PHED SECTION CHERIA BARIARPUR, SUB DIVISION MANJHAUL, P.S. MANJHAUL, PHED DIVISION BEGUSARAI, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI 3. RAM YATAN RAI S/O LATE GANGA RAM RAI KEYMAN CUM- CHAUKIDAR, PHED SECTION TEGHRA, SUB DIVISION BARAUNI, P.S. TEGHRA DIVISION BEGUSARAI, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI 4. AMARNATH SINGH S/O LATE GAYAN CHANDRA SINGH KEYMAN CUM CHAUKIDAR, SECTION TEGHRA SUB DIVISION BARAUNI, P.S. TEGHRA PHED DIVISION BEGUSARAI 5. SUSHIL KUMAR CHAUDHARY S/O UDIT NARAIN CHAUDHARY KEY MAN-CUM-CHOWKIDAR, PHED SECTION TEGHRA P.S. TEGHRA SUB DIVISION BARARI, PHED DIVISION BEGUSARAI, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, PHED, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (MECHANICAL) PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT., BEGUSARAI DIVISION, BEGUSARAI 4. SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT., SUB DIVISION BARAUNI AT TEGHRA DISTT.- BEGUSARAI 5. SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING SUB DIVISION MAJHAUL DISTT.- BEGUSARAI ----------- 2. 25.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The twin relief sought in the writ application is for arrears of difference of wages from 1.6.2002 to 30.11.2006. The second relief sought is with regard to treating him as a fresh appointee amenable to the new pension scheme. Counsel for the parties are not at issue that 2 in so far as the second relief is concerned, the writ petition may be disposed off in terms of C.W.J.C. No. 6183 of 2008 and analogous cases affirmed in L.P.A. No. 787 of 2009 and analogous cases. Learned counsel for the State is right in his objection that it shall remain a matter for factual verification by the respondents that the petitioners were similarly situated on the latter relief only in which event they shall be entitled to similar treatment. If the respondents propose to hold that the petitioners are not similarly situated as the issues decided by this Court, they shall be obliged to pass a reasoned and speaking order setting out the issues which distinguish the case of the petitioners so as not to entitle him to similar treatment, so that judicial review of such an order, if the need arise may be facilitated. Let the claims of the petitioners on both issues inclusive of the order passed in L.P.A. No. 1140 of 2005 be considered and disposed in the manner aforesaid within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)