ORDER Pramath Patnaik, J. - Defect, as pointed out by the Registry, is hereby ignored. 2. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for direction upon the respondents to give same and similar benefit of regularisation of services on the post of Roller Driver to the petitioner, which has been given to the other similarly situated Roller Drivers of Deoghar District in terms of order dated 12.07.2006 passed in W.P. (S) No. 171 of 2004 by this Hon'ble Court and also for quashing Memo No. 934 dated 16.07.2002, by which, services of the petitioner has been terminated from the post of Roller Driver in Road Construction Department and further prayed for disposal of the case of the petitioner in terms of order dated 12.07.2006 passed in W.P. (S) No. 171 of 2004. 3. Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, learned J.C to Sr. S.C. II for the respondents. 4. The facts, as delineated in the writ petitions, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner was appointed as Roller Driver on daily wages basis on 13.05.1988 in the office of Coal Mining Area Development Authority, Dhanbad and in pursuant to the Govt. Letter No. 671 (S) dated 04.02.1989 issued by Road Construction Department, Bihar a decision was taken to takeover the maintenance of roads etc. from Coal Mining Area Development Authority, Dhanbad. Pursuant thereto, the services of the petitioner, who was appointed as Roller Driver on daily wages basis on 13.05.1988 in the office of Coal Mining Area Development Authority, Dhanbad, along with other Roller Drivers with road-rollers, were handed over by the Coal Mining Development Authority, Dhanbad vide letter no. 773 dated 10.04.1989 to the Road Construction Department, Road Division, Dhanbad, as evident from letter no. 1 dated 1.1.2005, issued by the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Dhanbad. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance to the State of Jharkhand vide letter no. 769 (S) dated 14.02.2002 issued by Deputy Secretary to the Govt., Road Construction Department, Jharkhand an intimation was sent to the Executive Engineer to send the details of Roller Drivers working in the department as well as their sanctioned strength. In compliance thereof, the Executive Engineer sent the details, in which, the name of the petitioner finds mention at serial no. 6. 6. In compliance thereof, the Executive Engineer sent the details, in which, the name of the petitioner finds mention at serial no. 6. 6. It has been contended in the writ application that on the one hand, the details of Jeep Driver, Roller Driver etc. working on daily wages was called for along with sanctioned strength, but, on the other hand, in the meantime, vide letter no. 2581 dated 04.06.2002 a direction was issued by the same authority i.e. Deputy Secretary to the Government directing all the Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, Jharkhand to stop taking work from the daily wagers, who have been appointed after 01.08.1985 in the Road Construction Department. In pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the services of the petitioner was terminated vide Memo No. 934 dated 16.07.2002. 7. It has further been contended in the writ application that in pursuant to the direction for termination of services of the persons appointed on daily wages after 01.08.1985 issued vide Memo No. 543 dated 30.05.2002, one of the aggrieved persons, namely Ram Lal Rawani, who was also appointed after 01.08.1985, challenged his termination in W.P. (S) No. 3667 of 2002, which was disposed of vide order dated 25.02.2003 quashing the impugned order of termination dated 30.05.2002 and direction was given to regularise the services of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of copy of the order. The State, being aggrieved by the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 3667 of 2002, preferred L.P.A. No. 345 of 2003, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.11.2005. 8. It has further been contended that other similarly situated persons also moved this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 171 of 2004, which too was disposed of vide order dated 12.07.2006 in terms of the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 3667 of 2002. Against which, the State of Jharkhand preferred S.L.P. (Civil) No. 14110 of 2007, which was dismissed vide order dated 06.08.2007 by Hon'ble Apex Court and the review, being Civil Review Petition (Civil) No. 404 of 2009, filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 16.07.2009. 9. Against which, the State of Jharkhand preferred S.L.P. (Civil) No. 14110 of 2007, which was dismissed vide order dated 06.08.2007 by Hon'ble Apex Court and the review, being Civil Review Petition (Civil) No. 404 of 2009, filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 16.07.2009. 9. It has been contended that in the meantime, the services of the petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 3667 of 2002 was regularised and services of the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 171 of 2004, who further preferred Contempt Case (C) No. 868 of 2007, have also been regularized. 10. It has further been submitted that in deference to the order dated 10.4.2006 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3595-3612/99 in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and others and analogous cases, the Under Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Road Construction Department, Jharkhand issued direction to all the Chief Engineers/Superintending Engineers of Road Construction Department to send the details of the persons who have worked for more than 10 years for taking steps for regularisation of their services. In compliance thereof, the other similarly situated daily wagers, who have served the Government for more than 10 years have been regularised vide Govt. Letter dated 18.7.2009 but the petitioner is still moving from pillar to post for regularisation of his services even after serving for more than 14 years in the Department. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the case of other similarly situated Roller Driver, namely, Girja Shankar Dubey, in W.P. (S) No. 3662 of 2010 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 04.09.2015 directing the respondents-authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of his service and take a decision thereof in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the case of the aforesaid Roller Driver in W.P. (S) 3662 of 2010 has been recommended for regularisation of his service and the petitioner is squarely covered by the said order dated 04.09.2015 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3662 of 2010. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State, being the model employer, cannot discriminate the similarly situated persons either in the matter of employment nor in the matter of regularisation of services. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State, being the model employer, cannot discriminate the similarly situated persons either in the matter of employment nor in the matter of regularisation of services. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the grant of any benefits to the employees, who have earlier approached the High Court and denying the same benefits to the similarly placed employees by the Government is unjustified as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.T. Veerappa and others v. State of Karnataka and others as reported in (2006) 9 SCC 406. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents though controverting the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has approached this Court belatedly, hence, his prayer is stale one, and may be rejected in limine but did not dispute the fact that similarly situated person has been given benefit after the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 3662 of 2010. 14. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner has rendered more than 10 years of service prior to their disengagement and the similarly situated persons have been given the benefit of regularisation of their services in compliance of the order passed by this Court. From perusal of Annexure - 12 (order passed in W.P. (S) No.3662 of 2010), it appears that the case of the petitioner was recommended for regularization. 15. Therefore, in the fitness of things, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents-authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of his services and take a decision thereof in accordance with law, taking into account that the similarly situated persons have been given the same benefit and keeping view the circular dated 04.06.2008 issued by Deputy Secretary to the Government, Road Construction Department, Jharkhand vide Annexure 11 and considering the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner vide letter dated 4068 under Annexure 12 to W.P. (S) No. 3662 of 2011, within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 16. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stand disposed of. Petition disposed of.