IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4625 of 2005 1. Shamim Ahmad Khan son of late Sharafuddin Khan c/o Hasin Akhtar @ Hasnu Khan near Madarsa. 2. Neyaz Ahmad Khan son of late Asad Khan @ Aso Khan, Both are residents of Mohalla- Samanpura, Police Station – Shastri Nagar, District- Patna. ..Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Animal Husbandary Department, Vikash Bhawan, Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director Animal Husbandary, Secretariate Vikash Bhawan, Patna-15, Bihar. 4. The Regional Director, Animal Husbandary, North Bihar Region, Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur. 5. The District Animal Husbandary Officer (D.A.H.O.) Vaishali, District- Vaishali at Hazipur. ..Respondents. ----------- 6 14.10.2011 The two petitioners before this Court were engaged to work under the respondents, which is the department of Animal Husbandary in the district of Vaishali. According to them, the engagement was sometime in the year 1991, however, after 1994 they were prevented from working without any formal order of removal otherwise having been passed. They kept pursuing the matter with the respondents but no final decision on this status was taken which ultimately compelled them to come before this High Court by filing writ application in the year 2005. In the counter affidavit, some facts are not disputed except for the fact that according to the respondents the petitioners decided not to work voluntarily after the year 1994 and their statements or stand that they were prevented from working it is neither correct nor truthful. They also indicate that a draft in favour of the petitioners had also been prepared after filing of the counter affidavit with regard to the period they had worked and 2 information was also given to them on 27.07.2006 which is evident from Annexure-B and B/1. But till date they have not approached the authorities or collected the amount. Learned senior counsel says that after passage of so many years, they do not want to agitate the matter beyond a point but they could be more than satisfied if the respondent make over the draft prepared in their name as a token of payment for the period they had worked. Obviously, a draft prepared way back in the year 2006 would not remain valid in the year 2011. If it still exists it has to be revalidated or may be a fresh one would be required to be drawn up. In this back ground, the writ application is disposed of with a direction upon the District Animal Husbandary Officer, Vaishali (respondent no.5) that based on the stand taken by them in the counter affidavit filed in this case and the evidence produced thereto. He shall now endeavour to ensure that a fresh draft or revalidated draft is made over to the petitioners within the period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order with regard to the other claims, no order is required to be passed. Writ is disposed of and matter is allowed to rest. Md. Ibrarul (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)