Order After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials on record, this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself by passing the following order. 2. In this writ petition, the claim of the petitioners is for the regularisation of their services and for an order directing the respondents to grant them consequential benefits. 3. The case of the petitioners, as has been made out in the writ petition, is that petitioner No. 1 Jai Prakash Sharma was initially appointed as a temporary night guard by respondent no. 7, the Range Officer, Biscomaun, Munger on 21st March 1981. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, namely, Jitendra Kumar Singh, Ramji Singh and Sachita Nand Singh were initially appointed as temporary night guards by the same respondent no. 7 in the year 1977 and petitioner No. 5 Kedar Prasad Sharma was also initially appointed as temporary night guard by respondent no. 8, namely, the Range Officer, Gaya vide memo No. 909/ R.O. dated 23rd February, 1981. Of these petitioners, the services of petitioner nos. 2 to 4 were sometime terminated and thereafter their services were again reinstated vide memo no, 91 dated 4th August, 1982. Now their claim is that their services are not being regularised even though the persons who were similarly placed and who were juniors to the petitioners, in respect of their services regularisation has already taken place. In this connection in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, the petitioners have referred to the services of persons whose names are at serial Nos. 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 and that they are all juniors to petitioner No. 1 who is at serial No. 12 in Annexure-1. Further case of the petitioners is that they are doing the same nature of job. In respect of some night guards, their services have been regularised but so far as the petitioners are concerned, their services have not been regularised. This, according to the petitioners, is clearly discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have also stated that their cases are governed by the decisions rendered by this Court in C.W.J.C. Nos. 8563 of 1992 and 9837 of 1992. This, according to the petitioners, is clearly discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have also stated that their cases are governed by the decisions rendered by this Court in C.W.J.C. Nos. 8563 of 1992 and 9837 of 1992. It is also the assertion of the petitioners that against the decision of this Court rendered in C.W.J.C. No. 9837 of 1992 on 6.4.1993, a proceeding was also initiated before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has upheld the said order dated 6-4-1993 vide its order dated 16.8.1993 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 10132 of 1993. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the respondents authorities, namely, BISCOMAUN is suffering from severe financial crisis. In connection with the regularisation of services of the petitioners, the case which has been made out in counter affidavit, is that at the present the work load of BISCOMAUN has considerably been reduced and the Government has directed the authorities of the BISCOMAUN to maintain only 110 depots as against the existing 587 depots and as the work load has been reduced, they are not in a position to absorb the petitioners and take further financial burden. The further case of the respondent is that they do not get sufficient financial grant from the State Government and as such they are financially handicapped. In so far as the petitioner are concerned, there is no particular case, made out against them save and except making out a case that the services of the petitioners were not initially regular. In the counter affidavit, no averment has been made that there is any allegation against the petitioners or that their services are not, in any way, satisfactory. No case is made out that there is any communication of adverse report or remarks against the services of the petitioners. 5. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the case of the petitioners in the instant case is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court rendered in C.W.J.C. No. 856 of 1992 and 9837 of 1992. This Court sitting singly cannot and also does not want to take any different view than the one which has been taken in the aforesaid two decisions of the Division Bench of this Court. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition succeeds. This Court sitting singly cannot and also does not want to take any different view than the one which has been taken in the aforesaid two decisions of the Division Bench of this Court. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition succeeds. This Court directs the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners inasmuch as they are working atleast for the last more than ten years at a stretch without any complaint or grievance against the performance of their duty. In that view of the matter, the respondents should regularise the services of the petitioners with effect from Ist June 1995 and pay them all the consequential benefits. It is however, made clear that as a result of this order, the petitioners will not be entitled to claim any benefits by way of arrears of pay and other allowances as a result of the regularisation of their services. The regularisation of the services of the petitioners may be made within Ist June, 1995 and should take effect from that date. 7. With the above observation/direction, this writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to cost.