IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5525 of 2008 Om Prakash Srivastava, Son of Ram Ayodhya Prasad, Permanent resident of Village- Maker, Police Station- Maker, District- Saran. .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Special Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. Director, Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. Joint Director, Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. Sub-Divisional Officer, Agriculture, Patna Sadar. ... Respondents. ----------- 02- 25.3.2009 Heard Mr. Rajendra Narain for the petitioner, and learned assistant counsel to Mr. Sanjay Kumar No.2, Government Pleader No.15. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.3.2008 (Annexure-9), issued under the signature of respondent no.5, whereby the services of 11 persons mentioned therein, including the petitioner herein, were dispensed with. Amongst the 10 persons mentioned in Annexure-9, seven persons preferred the following writ petitions, which were allowed by a common order dated 4.3.2009 (Annexure-11), on the ground that the impugned order was withdrawn by the respondent authorities: (i) C.W.J.C. No.5336 of 2008 (Dinesh Lal Das Vs. The State of Bihar and others); 2 (ii) C.W.J.C. No.4895 of 2008 (Birendra Kumar Ram Vs. The State of Bihar and others); (iii) C.W.J.C. No. 4993 of 2008 (Ashok Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and others); (iv) C.W.J.C. No.5021 of 2008 (Mani Kumar Jha Vs. the State of Bihar and others). (v) C.W.J.C. No.5442 of 2008 (Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and others); (vi) C.W.J.C. No.5451 of 2008 (Ashok Kumar Das Vs. The State of Bihar and others); and (vii) C.W.J.C. No.8185 of 2008 (Sone Lal Paswan Vs. the State of Bihar and others). 2. Consequently those seven writ petitions were disposed of with a direction that those petitioners shall be entitled to all consequential benefits for the period they were kept out of service from “4.3.2008 to 26.2.2009”. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Counsel submit in one voice that the present petitioner’s case is covered by the judgment dated 4.3.2009 (Annexure-11). The writ petition is disposed of on just the same terms. 3. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/