JUDGMENT Radha Mohan Prasad, J. -In this application the grievance of the petitioners appears to be that despite the fact that they had worked on daily wages for quite long time, their engagement was terminated vide the impugned order contained in Annexure 1 series. 2. Mr. Thakut, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners stated that a petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners on 24.9.1993 bringing the certain facts on the record of this case. However, the said petition is not on the record but an unaffidavited copy of the same has been furnished by Mr. Thankur. Mr. Thakur has only raised a simple ground that the persons engaged much after the petitioners in the same capacity have been allowed to continue whereas the engagement of the petitioners was terminated by the impugned order which amounts to discrimination, besides the action being arbitrary. 3. In view of the nature of engagement of the petitioners, I do not feel persuaded to entertain this application on merit. However, rightly suggested by Mr. Thakur and agreed by the learned Counsel for the State. I dispose of this writ application with the direction to the Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Sub-division, Madhepura (respondent no.2) to examine the aforementioned grievance of the petitioners if they raise it by filing a fresh representation before him within four weeks from today. It is, however, made clear that if the persons engaged on daily wages later then the petitioners are found to be in the employment, the petitioners should also be given similar treatment, if necessary by following the principle of 'last come first go' and after giving notice to the persons going to be affected. 4. This writ application, thus, stands disposed of with the aforementioned direction.