IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6105 of 2010 1. RAM JATAN PANDIT, S/O LATE RAM BILASH PANDIT, R/O VILLAGE-PANDITPUR, POST-KABIRPUR, DISTRICT-SIWAN, P.S.-MAIRBA, DISTRICT-SIWAN AT PRESENT WORKING AS CHAUKIDAR, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, MADHUBANI DIVISION, MADHUBANI. 2. RAM CHARITAR RAI, S/O LATE-MD.NARAYAN RAI, POST-SAHNADPUR GORPITHIA, P.S.-SAHPUR, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. 3. TRIBENI PODDAR, S/O LATE SHIV GOVIND PODDAR, R/O VILLAGE-RAMPUR POST-WARISNAGAR, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 4. RAM AWATAR RAM, S/O LATE YODHA RAM, R/O VILLAGE AND POST-RATAN MALA VIA MAJHALIYA, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. 5. KARN BAHADUR, S/O LAL BAHADUR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE+POST+P.S.-JAYNAGAR, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. ……………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT NORTH BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER BUILDING CONSTRUCTION HOUSING DEPARTMENT, BUILDING CIRCILE, DARBHANGA. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT, BUILDING DIVISION, MADHUBANI. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 08.12.2010 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since sufficient pleadings and materials in respect of petitioner nos.4 and 5 are not available on record he may be permitted to withdraw the application on their behalf with liberty to them to move this Court separately. Permission is granted. The application in respect of petitioner nos.4 and 5 is dismissed as withdrawn. 2 In respect of rest of the 3 petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to an order of the Executive Engineer of Building Construction Department dated 31.7.1985, annexed as Annexure-2, to show that they were engaged by the Department at that point of time. Hence, he submits that the petitioners had completed 10 years of service with the respondents on the date of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3) reported in 2006(2) PLJR (SC)363. In the circumstances, in view of having completed 10 years of service the case of the 3 petitioners can be considered by the respondents in terms of paragraph 44 of the Constitution Bench judgment only and not otherwise. The respondents may do so if the petitioners file their representations for the purpose. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)