Virender Singh - (1.) After dismissal of W.P.(S)No. 5660 of 2003 vide impugned judgment/order dated 11th December, 2014, out of 39 writ petitioners only 13 have chosen to file the instant Letters Patent Appeal, which is at admission stage but with the consent of learned counsel for both sides we have taken it on Board for final consideration.
(2.) Admittedly, appellants and others who were engaged in Water Resources (Irrigation Department) of the State of Bihar on daily wage basis between 1979 to 1985, were removed from services in 1994, which gave them a cause to file writ petition being CWJC No. 2202 of 1995 which was dismissed by learned writ Court, aggrieved thereof they have filed Letters Patent Appeal, which was withdrawn by the appellants and others with a liberty to file review petition. Consequently, Civil Review No. 272 of 1997 was filed in Patna High Court, which was disposed of with observation that while considering the case of petitioners for regularization of their services in terms of Resolution no.5940 dated 18th June, 1993 and the judgment rendered in the case of State of Bihar v. Laghu Sichai Karmchari Sangh and others passed in S.L.P.(Civil) No.18164 of 1999 , their removal will not have any affect. When petitioners and others were not reinstated, they once again knocked the door of the writ Court through medium of CWJC No.2286 of 1999, which came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 8th April, 2002 with the following observation: Having regard to the facts and circumstances, as the petitioners claim that they were working in the Santhal Parganas region which now falls within the State of Jharkhand, they are given liberty to bring the matter along with this order as well as the order of the Supreme Court to the notice of the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi who, in its turn, will consider the cases of petitioners and to determine as to whether they are also covered by the Supreme Court's decision in S.L.P.(Civil)No.18164/99, the Resolution No.5940 dated 18th June, 1993 and their cases are required to be considered along with those named, as has been called for vide letter no.10/2001 dated 9th October, 2001 or not and determine the issue within six months.
(3.) Case of the appellants and others were then considered by the respondents and it was rejected on the ground that services of the petitioners have already been terminated long before. This is how the appellants are before this Court in the instant Letters Patent Appeal.;