JUDGMENT S. N. Pathak, J. - Heard Mr. Pratiush Lala, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AC to SC (L & C) for the State. 2. In this writ application, the petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondents for conferring benefits of pension, membership of subscription to General Provident Fund and other benefits at par with their juniors. A further prayer has been made to confer presumptive appointment to the petitioners with effect from the date on which juniors equals in the merit list were given appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers as well as to confer inter se seniority on the basis of merit list published by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) and petitioners be ranked senior to their juniors. 3. The facts as derived from the writ petition are that pursuant to an advertisement published for appointment of Primary Trained Teachers, petitioners had applied and their names found place in the list of 483 successful candidates in Giridih Division. Recommendation of all the 483 successful candidates was made successfully for the purpose of their appointment as per merit list, but no appointment letters were issued to the petitioners. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners had made representation before the respondent No. 5 and in reply thereof, the respondents had stated that reason for delay was on account of verification of documents, which is under process but lastly after delaying the matter for a considerable time, the petitioners were issued appointment letters on 20.06.2005 and 06.10.2005 respectively. Meanwhile, a notification was issued by the respondents on 9.12.2004 in which the cut-off date was fixed as 01.12.2004 and it was stated that those candidates who were appointed after cut-off date would not be entitled for pensionary benefits & G.P.F. membership, etc. Since the petitioners were appointed after cut-off date on account of delay caused by the respondents and since the petitioners were seniors from a large number of successful candidates as per merit list published by the JPSC, who were appointed prior to cut-off date, the petitioners cannot be deprived of all of their benefits for which they are otherwise entitled for and therefore, they have preferred this writ petition. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that similarly situated persons had filed W.P.(S) No. 1352 of 2007, in which vide order dated 02.02.2011, the respondents were directed to issue office order/ notification giving notional date of appointment with effect from the date when other successful candidates were issued appointment letters. It has been further submitted that the order passed by this Court in the said writ petition has been affirmed upto Hon''ble Supreme Court. Referring to the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(S). No. 1352 of 2007, learned counsel submits that the claim of the similarly situated candidates have been supported by the respondents. 5. Though no counter-affidavit has been filed but learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has no objection if the case is disposed of in terms of order passed in W.P.(S) No. 1352 of 2007. 6. The petitioners seem to have been deprived of their legitimate right only on account of delay in verification of their documents which was caused due to laches on the part of the respondents for which the petitioners cannot be penalized. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 4 to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1352 of 2007 and W.P.(S). No. 374 of 2015 and pass a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.