IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7914 of 2010 1. BIHARIJI PANDEY, S/O PARAMHANS PANDEY, R/O VILLAGE AND P.S.-BRAHAMPUR, DISTRICT-BUXAR. 2. NAND KISHORE PODDAR, S/O AYODHYA PRASAD PODDAR, R/O HASAILI, P.S-FALKA, DISTRICT- KATIHAR. 3. RAGHUNANDAN PASWAN, S/O SONAI PASWAN, R/O GHURGHURA, P.S.-MADANPUR (ARARIA), DISTRICT- ARARIA. 4. KAILASH MAHTO, S/O LATE JAI LAL MAHTO, R/O PALASI, P.S.-PALASI, DISTRICT-ARARIA. 5. SURAJ RAI, S/O LATE SRI RAI, R/O PALASI, P.S.-PALASI, DISTRICT-ARARIA. 6. ASHOK RAM S/O ARJUN RAM, R/O NAWADA GHAT, P.S.-BARH, DISTRICT-PATNA. 7. BIBI ROSHAN, W/O LATE KASIM ANSARI, R/O BASANTPUR, P.S.-ARARIA, DISTRICT-ARARIA. 8. SATYA NARAYAN PASWAN, S/O LATE KAILU PASWAN, R/O MATIARI, P.S.- FARBISGANJ, DISTRICT-ARARIA. 9. SUDAN PASWAN, S/O LATE BATARU PASWAN, R/O PARAS MANI, P.S.-SARSI, DISTRICT-PURNEA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, BISHWASARIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION,GOVT. OF BIHAR, BISHWASARIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 4. ENGINEER IN CHIEF CUM SPECIAL SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT,GOVT. OF BIHAR, BISHWASARIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, TRAFFIC DIVISION, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, DARBHANGA, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. 6. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, ROAD CIRCLE PURNEA, DISTRICT-PURNEA. 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, ROAD DIVISION ARARIA, DISTRICT- ARARIA. ----------- 2 03.03.2011 Petitioners claim to be appointed in 1981-82 in work charge establishment under the respondents. Thereafter, they were sought to be terminated against 2 which they moved this Court and their writ application was said to be allowed, vide Annexure-1. Petitioners were thereafter reinstated and again after some time they were sought to be terminated against which they again moved this Court and their writ application was said to be again allowed, vide Annexure-3. It is said that the respondents approached to the Apex Court against the said Division Bench judgment, but were unsuccessful. Petitioners thereafter were reinstated, but in work charge establishment, and they have not been regularized as yet. Therefore, this writ application has been filed for a direction to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners and regularized them in regular service of the Government. In view of the law authoritatively laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3), reported in 2006 (2) PLJR (SC)363, any claim of regularization can be considered by the respondents only in terms of observations of the Constitution Bench made in paragraph 44 of the judgment. In view of the said observations, the respondents are also required to consider the cases of the petitioners for their regularization. In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file their 3 representation before the competent authority for consideration of their cases for regularization in terms of the observations of the said Constitution Bench of the Apex Court which shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after the petitioners were terminated second time 14 persons were appointed in their places and they were later on regularized. Petitioners will be at liberty to mention this fact also in the representation bringing it to the notice of the concerned respondent. The petitioners shall produce all relevant documents and papers in respect of their appointment/engagement and continuance in service. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)