JUDGMENT : Shivaji Pandey, J Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners are claiming that they are still daily wage employees and they ought to have been regularized in service, instead final order dated 19th July 2000, petitioners have been asked to show cause as to why their services be not terminated with effect from 30th August 2000, as they have been working since 1st January 1988 and wrongly their services were treated as illegal. 3. Petitioners have submitted that as there was an order of status quo passed in this case in their favour they are still in service but the learned counsel for the State is not in a position to affirm the stand of the petitioners and, as such, it is very difficult for this Court to find out the actual position. 4. The claim of the petitioners is that they were appointed on Class-IV post in the Public Health Engineering Department (for short, „PHED?)-I, Begusarai. Petitioners have claimed that they were initially appointed during 1988 and subsequently were appointed in July & August 1988 and since then they were functioning on different Class-IV posts i.e. Khalasi, Nalkup Khalasi ete. The petitioners have annexed the chart for showing details of the dates of appointment of petitioners. It has been submitted that similarly situated persons had filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C.No. 959 of 1997 and this Court has remanded the matter to the Committee for consideration of their cases for regularization. The Court has passed the following order as under: “It is not in doubt that subsequently, the respondents had considered the case of regularization by constituting a three men Committee and on the evaluation of the service record as also after following the uniform criteria, a number of such daily wage employees were taken back in the Work Charge Establishment. The rest of the people who did not succeed in the selection made by the Three Men Committee, had also represented their case before the State Government had once again constituted a fresh committee where the cases of such daily wage employees are still said to be pending. The rest of the people who did not succeed in the selection made by the Three Men Committee, had also represented their case before the State Government had once again constituted a fresh committee where the cases of such daily wage employees are still said to be pending. In view of the fact that one of such Committee was constituted by order of the Principal Secretary of the PHED dated 4.8.2010, this Court would find that such of the petitioners whose services had yet been continued on daily wages and are still working, would be entitled for their consideration for regularization of their service in work charge/regular establishment by the aforementioned Six Men Committee. That being so, this Court would give liberty to such petitioners continuing on daily wages whose services have not yet been brought in the work charge establishment to approach the Principal Secretary PHED by filing their individual representation through proper channel within a period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order and the Principal Secretary, PHED. Thereafter will get their cases examined by Six Men Committee where after he will take his final decision in next six months from the date of filing of their representation. It is made clear that the petitioners whose services have yet not been brought in the work charge establishment and are still continuing on daily wage in view of the interim orders passed in these cases shall not be disengaged from their such daily wages work till their cases are examined by the Six Men Committee constituted by Principal Secretary, PHED vide his order dated 4th August 2010 and a final decision thereafter taken thereon by the Principal Secretary, PHED. It is also clarified that such of the petitioner whose services have been brought in the work charge establishment and/or regularized during the pendency of their respective writ applications will require no further consideration and will also not be reopened.” 5. It is also clarified that such of the petitioner whose services have been brought in the work charge establishment and/or regularized during the pendency of their respective writ applications will require no further consideration and will also not be reopened.” 5. In view of the aforesaid order of remand and direction, this Court also feels that the cases of these petitioners should also be considered by the same Committee on each and every aspect of the matter and the Committee shall also examine whether the cases of the present petitioner are similar to that of the petitioners of C.W.J.C.No. 859 of 1997 and if it is found that the cases of the present petitioners stand on the same footing, same treatment will be given to the present petitioners also. If on verification it is found that the petitioners are still working, then they should be allowed to work in same status till their cases are finally disposed of by the Committee. 6. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.