- (1.) The petitioners herein admittedly lost challenge to their termination by the respondent-Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. up to the Apex Court which arose out of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge such as WPS No. 6625/2006 (Seikh Jabir Ansari & others vs. The State of Jharkhand & others), WPS No. 5679/2004 (Mahendra Prasad & others vs. The State of Jharkhand & others) and WPS No. 5695/2004 (Md. Yusuf & others vs. The State of Jharkhand & others) vide judgments dated 06.11.2012 and 30.10.2012. Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 481/2012, 473/2012 and 483/2012, preferred by the petitioners, were also dismissed by the learned Division Bench vide judgment dated 05.12.2012. The Special Leave to Appeal, preferred by the aggrieved petitioners before the Apex Court, also stood dismissed such as S.L.P.(C) No. 13772/2013 arising out of LPA No. 481/2012, vide judgment dated 10.05.2013.
(2.) Petitioners had all along contended that they had continued for more than 25 years on the post of Forest Produce Overseer in individual cases under the erstwhile Bihar State Forest Development Corporation and thereafter, Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation, though initially, they were appointed on daily wage basis and thereafter for the limited period of three months which definitely continued till their termination. Having lost in their challenge to the termination, petitioners approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 700/2013 which was heard and decided on 27.01.2014, as per Annexure-13 enclosed to the WPS No. 2172/2014. The judgment of the Apex Court is quoted hereunder for better appreciation. "After arguing for some time, Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner prays and is permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the High court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. As the matter remained pending before this Court for quite some time and the petitioners' claim that they are struggling for their continuation in the department of the respondent-authority for the last 25 years, if such a petition is filed before the High Court, we request the High Court to decide the petition as early as possible preferably within a period of six months. Both parties are at liberty to raise all factual and legal issues available to them before the High Court."
(3.) Taking a cue from the observations made by the Apex Court in the said judgment, these writ petitions were filed seeking regularization in service on the strength of their claim that they had continued for more than 25 years in service till their disengagement.;