ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These petitioners have approached this Court on the threat of being terminated in view of the communication contained in Memo No. 2106 dated 19th July, 2004 (Annexure-12) issued by the Deputy Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and communicated to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Environment and Forest Department, Government of Jharkhand as also the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Environment and Forest Department Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. Thereafter under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Forest & Environment Department, Government of Jharkhand (Annexure-13) dated 29th July, 2005, has been issued asking the petitioners to show cause as to why their services be not terminated, which is also impugned. 3. It is contended by the petitioners that on the basis of the same Memo dated 19th July, 2004 (Annexure-12) persons similarly situated like the petitioners and allocated to the State of Bihar, Forest and Environment Department, being affected by the said memo approached the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 8983 of 2004 (Annexure-15) and vide judgment dated 1st of August, 2005 the said memo was quashed in respect of said persons. It is submitted that thereafter the judgment has attained finality and no Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred thereafter. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that based upon the said memo dated 19th July, 2004 itself, the impugned show cause notice dated 29th July,2005 has been issued upon present petitioners asking them to show cause as to why their services be not terminated. In the aforesaid background, vide order dated 27th November, 2012, after recording the aforesaid facts it was observed that a categorical reply be filed by the Secretary, Environment and Forest Department, Government of Jharkhand. Ranchi. After few adjournments an affidavit has thereafter again been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 though sworn by under Secretary of the Department. However, the specific query made by this Court has not been answered. 5. The respective details of each of the petitioners have been indicated. It is indicated in the last affidavit filed on 31st January,2003, that the petitioner no.1 was engaged on daily wages from 24th November, 1983. He was thereafter appointed on temporary basis as an Assistant Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 5. The respective details of each of the petitioners have been indicated. It is indicated in the last affidavit filed on 31st January,2003, that the petitioner no.1 was engaged on daily wages from 24th November, 1983. He was thereafter appointed on temporary basis as an Assistant Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 580-860 by the Conservator of Forest, State Training Circle, Gaya vide office order dated 24th September, 1985 and his services have been confirmed w.e.f. 1st July, 1989 vide office order dated 27th July, 1989 by the Conservator of Forest, State Trading Circle, Gaya and thereafter he is now posted as an Assistant Clerk in the office of Divisional Forest Officer, State Trading Division, Koderma, Jharkhand. 6. The petitioner no. 2 was engaged on daily wages from 14th November, 1983. Subsequently he was appointed on temporary basis as an Assistant Clerk in the same pay scale by the order dated 24th September,1985, issued by the same authority and his services have been confirmed on w.e.f. 24th September, 1987 by order of the Conservator of Forests Development Circle, Ranchi dated 17th April, 1990. 7. The petitioner no.3 was engaged on daily wages from 1st of November, 1983. Subsequently he was appointed on temporary basis in the same manner and the same scale vide order dated 24th September, 1985 and his services have been confirmed w.e.f. 24th September, 1988 vide office order dated 29th April, 1988 by the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh and now he is posed as an Assistant Clerk in the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Chatra South Division, Chatra, Jharkhand. 8. The petitioner no.4 was engaged on daily wages from 21st August, 1983. Subsequently he was appointed on temporary basis as an Assistant Clerk vide order dated 24th September, 1985 and his services have been confirmed w.e.f. 1st July, 1989 vide order dated 27th July, 1989 by the Conservator of Forest, State Trading Circle, Gaya and is now posted as an Assistant Clerk in the office of Divisional Forest Officers, Social Forestry Division, Garhwa. 9. The petitioner no.5 was appointed on temporary basis in the same scale vide office order dated 16th November, 1985 and his services have been confirmed w.e.f. 23rd November, 1988 vide office order dated 11th June, 1997 and is now posted as an Assistant Clerk in the office of Divisional Forest Officer, State Trading Division, Hazaribagh. 10. 9. The petitioner no.5 was appointed on temporary basis in the same scale vide office order dated 16th November, 1985 and his services have been confirmed w.e.f. 23rd November, 1988 vide office order dated 11th June, 1997 and is now posted as an Assistant Clerk in the office of Divisional Forest Officer, State Trading Division, Hazaribagh. 10. The petitioner no.6 was engaged on daily wages from 21st November, 1983 in the same scale and subsequently he was appointed as Assistant Clerk in the same pay scale vide order dated 16th November, 1985 and his services have been confirmed w.e.f. 23rd March, 1996 by order of the same date of the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh and is now posted as Assistant Clerk in Giridih Forest Division. 11. It appears from submissions made on behalf of the respondents that they have taken a stand that only show cause notice has been issued against the petitioners which has been challenged in the present writ application. However, it is also their stand that they have issued a show cause notice acting upon the communication contained in Memo dated 19th July, 2004 issued by the Respondents, Forest & Environment Department, Government of Bihar on the ground that a prescribed procedure was not followed for appointment of these petitioners. 12. These facts which are itself borne on record through the last affidavit filed by the respondents show that the petitioners have been engaged from 1983 onwards and have subsequently been confirmed in service by the respondents themselves. In similar circumstances, the persons affected by any show cause notice dated 19th July, 2004 (Annexure-12), had approached Patna Hgh Court in CWJC no. 8983 of 2004 in which the Patna High Court proceeded to quash the said show cause notice vide judgment dated 1st of August, 2005 contained at Annexure-15. 13. The Patna High Court recorded its finding that the petitioners had been appointed after following the procedure of law by the competent authority and were thereafter given service benefits like time bound promotion, after 20 years of their appointment during which they were allowed in service uninterruptedly before respondents proceeded to quash termination of those petitioners. It is stated that those petitioners were subsequently terminated on the basis of the impugned notice dated 19th July, 2004. 14. It is stated that those petitioners were subsequently terminated on the basis of the impugned notice dated 19th July, 2004. 14. In these facts and circumstances, I, therefore, feel that these petitioners should also be entitled to similar relief and they have been confirmed in service from respective dates by the order of Conservator passed much before as recorded hereinabove. The impugned show cause notice dated 19th July, 2004, is, therefore, unsustainable and is accordingly quashed. The petitioners have continued in service by virtue of an interim order dated 9th September, 2005 passed in the instant case. The petitioner no.2 is said to have been substituted by his widow on account of his death during the pendency of the writ application. In that view of the matter, substituted petitioner no. 2 is entitled to death cum retirement benefit of the original employee. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid term. Petition allowed.