IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.74 of 2008 1. The State of Bihar 2. Engineer in Chief -cum -Additional Commissioner, Public Works Department, Patna 3. Chief Engineer, South Bihar (Upbhag), Public Works Department, Patna. 4. Superintending Engineer, South Bihar Circle, Public Works Department, Patna 5. Joint Secretary, Public Works Department, Patna 6. Executive Engineer, Garden Division, Public Works Department, Patna … Petitioners Versus 1. Subhash Paswan son of Shri Kishori Paswan, resident of village Pathepur Diyara, PS. Mangalichak, District Patna. 2. Ajit kumar, son of Shri Jagadish Singh, resident of village Bahadurpur, P.S. Phulwari Sharif, District Patna 3. Subhash Mahton, son of Late Bishwanath Mahton resident of village Ranipur, P.S. Phulwari Shairf, District Patna. 4. Ram Keshwar Prasad son of late Harishchandra Prasad, resident of Mohalla-Gardanibagh, Road No.6, P.S. Gardanibagh, District-Patna. 5. Sunil Pandit son of late Bhadai Pandit resident of New Road, Gaighat, Kumhar toil, Phulwari Sharif District-Patna 6. Gyani Pal son of late Sundar Pal, resident of village Karoin Chak, Phulwari Shairf, District Patna. 7. Sundar Paswan son of Shri Phulchand Paswan, resident of Mohalla-Phulwari, PS.-Gardanibagh, District-Patna. 8. Dip Narayan Mahton, son of late Sudha Kant Mahton, resident of Phulwari, PS. Gardanibagh, District Patna All serial nos.1 to 8 are Mali, Garden Division, Public Works Department, Patna. ….. Opposite Parties. ----------- 05/ 04.12.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This petition has been filed for review of order dated 03.05.2007 by which C.W.J.C. No. 16060 of 2004 was disposed of as ‘allowed’, the impugned order of the authority concerned dated 25.10.2004 and its consequential orders were quashed and it was declared that the writ petitioners who are opposite parties 2 in this review petition were and still are regular employees of the state and accordingly are entitled to all benefits of such employment including their status and if any part thereof has been denied to them on the basis of the said orders let the same be restored within three months from the date of said order. This court does not find any error apparent on the face of record nor does it find any fresh material which was not available earlier nor even this court finds any other reason to review the said order. Accordingly this review petition is dismissed. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J.)