D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are working since long with the respondent authorities as daily wages workmen.
(2.) It is stated by the counsel for the petitioners that thereafter a Contempt Case(C) bearing Nos. 229 of 2002 and 175 of 2002 was instituted wherein also the case of those petitioners alike the present petitioners, direction was given to consider the case.
(3.) It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Letters Patent Appeal No. 649 of 2002 as well as Letters Patent Appeal No. 658 of 2002 was preferred by the State of Jharkhand and others wherein again the direction was given to consider the case of those petitioners who are similarly situated alike the present petitioners in Paragraph-7 of the order passed in both the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal dated 24th January, 2005 read as under:- "In the circumstances, we direct the appellant-State of Jharkhand and its Officers including the concerned Divisional Forest Officers to give preference to daily wagers like the writ petitioners/respondents over outsiders, as and when Class-IV posts including the post of Forest Guards are filled up in near future and to give them age relaxations, if they are found overage. However, this direction will be limited to only those daily wage workmen/employees who are still working under the State Government and not to those who have already been retrenched/not in service." In view of the aforesaid direction, none of the respondents are obeying the aforesaid direction for giving employment. The present petitioners are also working with the respondent authorities since long and therefore, similar treatment may be given which has been given in aforesaid paragraph-7 and in the aforesaid order passed in both the Letters Patent Appeal.;