IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.683 of 2008 1. PRADUMAN THAKUR S/O LATE SACHIDANAND THAKUR R/O VILLAGE-GORGAWA, P.S.- SAHPUR PATORI, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPURA AT PRESENT POSTED AS CHAUKIDAR IN ENGINEERING CELL STATE FAMILY WELFARE BUARAU MUZAFFARPUR SUB-DIVISION. 2. RAM NARESH SINGH S/O LATE BADSAH SINGH R/O VILLAGE-SITALPATI, P.S.- TARAIYA, DISTRICT- CHHAPARA AT PRESENT POSTED AS CHAUKIDAR IN ENGINEERING CELL STATE FAMILY WELFARE BUARAU MUZAFFARPUR SUB- DIVISION. 3. NARENDRA SHARMA S/O LATE YUDHITHIR SHARMA R/O VILLAGE-CHANDA, P.O.- MAINPURA CHANDA, P.S. MEHANDIYA, DISTRICT- JAHANABAD AT PRESENT POSTED AS CHAUKIDAR IN ENGINEERING CELL STATE FAMILY WELFARE BUARAU MUZAFFARPUR SUB-DIVISION. 4. RAM SURESH RAI S/O LATE NANDAN RAI R/O VILLAGE-BHAGWANPUR CHAKSINA, P.O. GORGAWA, P.S.- SAHPUR PATORI, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPURA AT PRESENT POSTED AS CHAUKIDAR IN ENGINEERING CELL STATE FAMILY WELFARE BUARAU MUZAFFARPUR SUB-DIVISION. …..……..Appellants Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ENGINEERING CELL, STATE FAMILY WELFARE BURAU, RAJBANSINAGAR PATNA-23 ………….Respondents ----------- 4.. 27.09.2011 This appeal arises out of the order dated 21.05.2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8484/2001, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that this Court has already rejected the claim of similarly situated Choukidars and peons of the Engineering cell with regard to the payment of arrears of salary although they worked from 01.01.1983 as daily wages employee. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the matter has already been decided by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8237 of 2001 vide order dated 5.7.2002. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has sought to raise contention that the appellants have actually worked but however in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 & 3 before the learned Single Judge, the said fact has been disputed by them. As the matter involves disputed question of facts as with regard to working of the appellant. We are of the opinion that on the above disputed facts no relief can be granted to the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly the present L.P.A. stands dismissed. Fahad ( T.Meena Kumari, J. ) ( Vikash Jain, J. )