IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1101 of 2008 1. Sheo Kumar Singh, son of Late Raghunath Singh, Resident of Village- Bahadura, P.S. Baikuntpur, District-Gopalganj 2. Mahendra Prasad, son of Jilebi Singh, Resident of Village- Turki Madan, P.S. Panapur, District-Chapra 3. Sri Kameshwar Prasad, son of late Suraj Singh, resident of village Matiari, P.S. Baikunthpur, Dist. Gopalganj Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Sri Shashishekhar Sharma, the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. Sri Madan Kumar, the Engineer-in-Chief-cum- Special Secretary, PHED, Bihar, Patna 4. Sri Surendra Kumar, the Chief Engineer, Mechanical, PHED, Bihar, Patna 5. Sri B.K.Sinha, the Executive Engineer, PHED Division, Gopalganj. ----------- 3. 13.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The direction of this Court in the order dated 31.8.2006 under contempt, after quashing the order of reversion of petitioner nos. 1 and 2, was to pay remuneration to the petitioners as they were entitled if they had remained in the work charged establishment. With respect to petitioner no. 3 the direction was to consider his case for regularisation in accordance with law. In the show cause filed on behalf of the Executive Engineer, PHED Division, Gaya, it is stated that by order no. 138 dated 11.6.2008, in terms of the order under contempt the earlier orders of reversion have been withdrawn and the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have been directed to be treated as working in the work charged establishment from the date of their reversion and would be entitled to the salary etc. accordingly. With respect to petitioner no. 3, it is stated that his case was not found fit for regularisation on the 2 basis of the facts mentioned therein and accordingly his claim for regularisation has been rejected. In the above circumstances, the order under contempt has been complied with. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits that a new EPF Account has been opened with respect to petitioner nos. 1 and 2 whereas the old account ought to have been continued by the opposite parties. Let the petitioners represent the said matter before the authorities concerned who shall consider the same and pass a reasoned order on the same within two months of the filing of the representation. The contempt application is accordingly dismissed but with the aforesaid observations and directions. S. Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)