IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.50 of 2004 1.Ashutosh Kumar, son of Surendra Nath Rai, resident of village Dharampur, P.S. Gopalpur, District- Gopalganj 2.Mani Lal Singh, son of Kripal Singh, resident of village- Bikrampur, P.S. Gopalpur, District- Gopalganj …………Appellants/ Petitioners Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna 3.Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna 4.Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna 5.Managing Director, Central Co-operative Bank, Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj 6.District Co-operative Officer, Gopalganj 7.Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gopalganj Circle, Gopalganj ………… Respondents/Opp.Parties ----------- 4. 15/07/2010 Order dated 30.7.2003 in C.W.J.C.No.36 of 2003 was challenged by two out of nine petitioners in appeal. The appellate court did not find any infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge but observed that the oral contention on behalf of the appellants that wrong facts were placed before the learned Judge, perhaps, `may give an occasion to the petitioner to resist the Co-operative Society that it obtained the judgment by fraud or collusion’. This observation of the Division Bench motivated the two petitioners to file this review application, taking the ground - 2 - that it was wrongly submitted before the learned single Judge that the Co-operative Society was running in loss and therefore, it was not obliged to take the petitioners into Cadre Fund. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to profit and loss account of the Society ending March 31, 2002, annexed as Annexure-2, to show that, in fact, the Society was running in profit. Even if it is accepted that it was wrongly placed before learned single Judge that the Society was running in loss, the fact that the cases of the petitioners were not found similar to the cases of other Paid Managers, whose writ application was allowed in 1996, and who were taken into Cadre Fund, cannot be denied. As per own admission of learned counsel for the petitioners, said 14 Paid Managers, whose services were taken into Cadre Fund in 2002 by Annexures- 3 and 4 of the writ application, were in service as Paid Managers since last more than six years whereas, it is admitted by the learned counsel fo0r the petitioners that petitioners were appointed as Paid Managers - 3 - in the year 2000-01. Therefore, on the date of order passed by this Court in the writ matter, they had hardly put in 2-3 years of service. On this count also, it is apparent that the case of petitioners cannot be held to be similar to those trained Paid Managers whose services were placed under the Cadre Fund by said Annexures-3 and 4. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the review application and the same is accordingly dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have now put in service as Paid Managers for almost ten years. If that is so, petitioners will be at liberty to stake the claim for their transfer to Cadre Fund now in view of their length of service in accordance with law. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)