IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6885 of 2009 1. AJAY KUMAR SINGH , SON OF SHRI DOODHARI SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MAITHOAN TOLA, P.O.-BALIGAON, P.S. JAGDISHPUR, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR, ARA 2. NARAYAN PRASAD SON OF SHEO MAHATAM CHAURASIA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE+POST-SEMRAO, P.S. CHARPOKHARI, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR, ARA 3. ANIL KUMAR SINGH , SON OF NASIBA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE+POST-SAHNI, P.S. JAGDISHPUR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR, ARA 4. RAJKESHWAR SAH, SON OF LATE SARJU SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE+POST-SIMRAO, P.S. CHARPOKHARI, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR, ARA. 5. GANESH PRASAD GUPTA, SON OF LATE SAHAJEE SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE+POST-SIMRAO, P.S. CHARPOKHARI, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR, ARA. 6. RAMANAND CHOUBEY, SON OF LATE GAYA CHOUBEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE+POST-SIMRAO, P.S. CHARPOKHARI, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR, ARA. 7. RAMDEO CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE SAGAON CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE+POST-SIMRAO, P.S. CHARPOKHARI, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR, ARA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Principal Secretary , Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director-in-chief, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Assistant Director, Health Services (Falaria), Government of Bihar, Patna ………. ……… Respondents. ----------- 2. 23.06.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the state. Petitioners were working on class-III & class-IV posts on daily wages basis in Filaria Control Unit of Health Services Department, Government of Bihar since 1986. Subsequently, in the year, 1998, petitioners were removed from service on different dates. Challenging the termination order, petitioners 2 filed C.W.J.C. No. 132 of 1994 which was dismissed by order dated 19.4.1995. Against this order, the petitioner did not prefer any L.P.A. Subsequently, large number of writ applications were filed by terminated employees of the Health department, earlier working on class-III and class-IV posts on daily wages basis, with a prayer to reinstate and regularize them in service. Some of the cases were allowed and some of the cases were dismissed. Writ petitioners, whose cases were dismissed, filed L.P.A. and state also moved in L.P.A, against the order whereby writ applications were allowed. Altogether 828 cases were taken up analogous for hearing, in which some were L.P.As. and some were writ applications filed for similar relief. Their cases were taken up together and were disposed of in the light of the decision reported in 2006(2) PLJR (State of Karnataka & ors Vs Uma Devi & Ors.) The L.P.As. and the writ applications were disposed of with a direction to the authority of the Health Department, Government of Bihar to reconsider the cases of all the effected employees with a view to find out on the basis of relevant facts and law as stated by the Constitution Bench in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs Uma Devi & Ors, it was also observed in the judgment and clarified that the authorities of the Health Department while considering the cases of affected employees in these cases, may consider and take decision as per law in 3 respect of similarly situated other employees of the department. Petitioners whose writ applications were dismissed in the year, 1995, have now come again before this court by filing this writ application in the light of observation made in the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 946/03 and analogous cases whereby authorities of the Health Department, Govt. of Bihar were directed to consider the case of similarly situated other employees of the department and take decision as per law. Petitioners’ case is that they come within the category of similarly situated employees of the Health Department. Since petitioners’ writ application was dismissed in the year, 1995 itself and they further did not move before superior forum against the dismissal order, it became final. In the facts and circumstances, petitioners are directed to file their representations before the concerned authorities in the light of the observations of this court in L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003 and analogous cases. The authorities may consider these petitioners as similarly situated persons and decide whether petitioners also come within the category of similarly situated employees and in whose cases consideration is to be made in accordance with law, as per direction of this court. This application is disposed of. akv/ ( Mridula Mishra, J )