IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1838 of 2010 1. RAM NARESH SINGH S/O LATE HARIBANSH SINGH R/O VILL.- DAUDPUR P.S. PAROO DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR 2. KUSHESHWAR PRASAD CHAUDHARY S/O KAILASH CHAUDHARY R/O VILL.- AAROPUR, P.O. RUPAULI, P.S. SARAIYA, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR 3. TARKESHWAR PRASAD SINGH S/O RAM RATAN SINGH R/O VILL.- DIGHARA, P.O. DIGHARA, P.S. SADAR, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR 4. RAM EKBAL THAKUR S/O HARIHAR THAKUR R/O VILL.- ARARA, P.O.- HARIDASPUR, P.S. KANTI, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR 5. MANJAR HUSSAIN S/O LATE NANHE MIRJA R/O VILL.- SARKARIPUR, P.O. MANIKPURA, DISTT.- SARAN AT CHAPRA 6. RAM SIRTAJ SHAHI S/O SRI BIRCHANDA SHAHI R/O VILL.- SAHABJPUR, P.S. KANTI, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR 7. KARU PASWAN S/O KHEDAN PASWAN R/O VILL.- SUGASOT, P.O. HARDAUN, BARACHATTI, DISTT.- GAYA 8. MAHESHWAR PANDEY S/O HARDEO PANDEY R/O VILL.- SONBARSA, P.O. BISHUNPUR, P.S. KANTI, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR 9. RAM JATAN RAI S/O DANGAR RAI R/O VILL.- SUMER, NOOR NAGAR, P.S. SADAR, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR 10. LAKHINDRA MISTIRI S/O MAHABIR PRASAD R/O VILL.- UPHRAUL, P.O. BAKHRA, P.S. SARAIYA, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, VISHWESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF-CUM-SPECIAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, VISHWESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, VISHWESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 5. THE REGIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT., MUZAFFARPUR 6. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT., MUZAFFARPUR 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEER DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 2. 5.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners were initially appointed on 2 daily wage. They came to be inducted in the work charged establishment. When they were reverted to daily wage, they questioned the same in a writ petition which was referred to the three men committee by the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7359 of 2002 and analogous cases. The petitioner has now been appointed on a newly sanctioned post by an order dated 11.12.2006 treating him as a fresh appointee. They had been asked to acknowledge their entitlement for pension etc. under a new CPF account on 16.3.2006 under Government resolution No. 639. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6183 of 2008 and analogous cases stated to have affirmed in L.P.A No. 787 of 2009 as also by the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No. 8663 of 2010. If a similar issue has already been decided by this Court affirmed by the Apex Court, let the respondents examine the claims of the petitioners in that light and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law, within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before them. If the respondents propose to distinguish the case of the petitioners, they are obliged to furnish the 3 materials for such distinction in writing to the petitioners with an opportunity of personal hearing to them and then pass a reasoned and speaking order after consideration of all issues of distinction so as to facilitate judicial review of their order, should the need arise. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)