IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.5652 of 2010
1. SATYA NARAYAN MAHTO, son of Late Basudeo Mahto,
Resident of Village-Mohanpur, P.s. Dumra, Dist-
Sitamarhi.
2. Bhola paswan, son of Late Dasai Paswan, resident of
village-Murliadih, P.S. Bajpatti, Dist-Sitamarhi.
3. Ram Binod Singh, son of Ram Pragash Mahto, Resident
of village-Bhasargot, P.S. Sitamarhi, Dist-
Sitamarhi.
4. Ram Babu Mahto son of Late Khakhan Mahto, Resident
of village-Bhasargot, P.S. Sitamarhi, Dist-
Sitamarhi.
5. Pradip Mahto, son of Late Prameshwar Mahto, Resident
of Villag- Mohanpur, P.s. Dumra, Dist-Sitamarhi.
6. Jaleshwar Mahto, son of Deoki Mahto, Resident of
village-Mohanpur, P.S. Dumra, Dist-Sitamarhi.
7. Ram Babu Mahto, son of Late Ram Bahadur mahto,
Resident of village-Mohanpur, P.S.Dumra, Dist-
Sitamarhi.
8. Sandip Kumar, son of Late Bahadur Prasad, Resident
of village-Gandhi Tola, P.S. Bajpatti, Dist-
Sitamarhi.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
3. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi.
4. The Additional District Magistrate-Cum-Incharge
District Establishment Committee, Sitamarhi.
-----------
2 30.11.2010 Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the petitioners are working on
daily wages in the Collectorate of
Sitamarhi, since last much more than 10
years. Therefore, he submits that the cases
of the petitioners may be considered in the
light of observations made by the
Constitution Bench in the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs.
Uma Devi and Ors. [2006(2) PLJR 363(SC)] in
2
paragraph-44 of the judgment.
Writ application is disposed of
with a liberty to the petitioners to file a
representation for consideration of the
cases in terms of said observations of the
Constitution Bench made in paragraph-44. It
is accepted that the representation filed
by the petitioners shall be considered as
expeditiously as possible.
Prakash (J.N. Singh, J)