JUDGMENT : AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Review Application has been filed praying for review of the judgment dated 06.08.2018, whereby L.P.A. No. 1079 of 2018 has been dismissed affirming the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10th July, 2018 in C.W.J.C. No. 9827 of 2016. 3. The dispute in short is about regularization of services as the applicant claimed continuance after having been appointed in the Work Charge Establishment of the Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar as a Vibratory Road Roller Driver. 4. The applicant had earlier come up before this Court upon his termination in 2002 which petition was dismissed on 14.02.2006 and a Letters Patent Appeal as well as a Review Application were also dismissed. A plea was taken in the Review Application that several other similarly situated employees had been taken back in service and were regularized. In a restoration application filed, the Division Bench while allowing the same had made an observation that a liberty is given to the applicant to pursue the writ petition which had been filed earlier for the said purpose. In order to gather these facts, instead of narrating the same once again, we hereinafter extract the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10th July, 2018 that has given rise to the appeal and to this Review Application: “Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was appointed as a Vibratory Road Roller Driver in the work charge establishment on 25.09.1989 but was terminated along with one Tuntun Bahadur Thapa on 21.12.2002. He questioned the termination order before this Court in CWJC No. 7056 of 2003 which was dismissed on 14.02.2006 by learned Single Judge. The petitioner filed an intra Court appeal giving rise to L.P.A. No. 194 of 2006 feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge which also was dismissed on 09.01.2007 by the Division Bench. A Civil Review application bearing No. 55 of 2007 was also dismissed for default. The petitioner filed an intra Court appeal giving rise to L.P.A. No. 194 of 2006 feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge which also was dismissed on 09.01.2007 by the Division Bench. A Civil Review application bearing No. 55 of 2007 was also dismissed for default. A restoration application bearing MJC No. 403 of 2013 was filed by the petitioner for restoration of a Civil Review No. 55 of 2007 and in which a plea was taken regarding a discriminatory treatment to the petitioner as according to him similarly situated employees had been taken back in service however the plea did not satisfy the Division Bench for allowing the restoration application. While dismissing the restoration application a liberty was given to pursue the writ petition earlier filed for the purpose. According to Mr. Yugal Kishore, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is following a liberty given by the Division Bench that the writ petition can be considered. He also submits that several similarly placed persons have been taken back in service. The records transpire that the petitioner had come before this Court again for the same relief in C.W.J.C. No. 4734 of 2015 which was disposed of with the direction to the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department to take a decision on the representations so filed, which has been dismissed by the order impugned bearing Memo No. 686 dated 17.12.2015. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Although a plea for parity has been made with reference to Annexure-9 to submit that two persons Brajnandan Prasad and Ram Lakhan Prasad, who were also appointed after the cut off date but have been reinstated, the distinction is that while petitioner’s challenge to the termination in 2002 has failed at each stage until the division bench, the writ petition of these petitioners was allowed vide Annexure-9 & which was followed by order of reinstatement at Annexure-10. A policy decision was taken by the State Government to regularize all those who had been appointed prior to 11.12.1990 and were in service on the date of enforcement of the policy dated 17.10.2013 and since admittedly, this petitioner was removed way back in the year 2002 itself, he cannot draw parity with others. A policy decision was taken by the State Government to regularize all those who had been appointed prior to 11.12.1990 and were in service on the date of enforcement of the policy dated 17.10.2013 and since admittedly, this petitioner was removed way back in the year 2002 itself, he cannot draw parity with others. The reasons assigned by the Principal Secretary at Annexure-15 to refuse reinstatement/regularization to the petitioner is in tune with the circular dated 17.10.2013 and requires no interference. Even otherwise the legal position as to regularization is well settled and is available to only those in service. The services of the petitioner was terminated way back in 2002 with his prayer for reinstatement having been rejected until the Division Bench. In fact with the division bench refusing to restore the review application, the termination has attained finality. No cause for interference is made out in the circumstances discussed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.” 5. After the dismissal of the writ petition, an L.P.A. was preferred and the same was dismissed on 06.08.2018 by the following judgment:- “Challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the judgment dated 10.07.2018 passed by the learned writ court in C.W.J.C. No. 9827 of 2016. By the impugned judgment the learned writ Court has refused to quash the order as contained in Memo No. 10710 dated 17.10.2013 (Annexure 15 to the writ application) by which the reinstatement of the petitioner was rejected by the Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, (respondent no. 3). The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed without properly verifying the representation of the petitioner and by ignoring the fact that several similar situated persons have been reinstated in the department as permanent employee from the date of termination in the light of the new circular dated 17.10.2013. The learned writ Court considered the case of the petitioner but found that the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the case of two persons namely, Brajnandan Prasad and Ram Lakhan Prasad. As a matter of fact, the petitioners’ challenge to his termination in the year 2002 has failed in C.W.J.C. No. 7056 of 2003 as also in L.P.A. No. 194 of 2006. As a matter of fact, the petitioners’ challenge to his termination in the year 2002 has failed in C.W.J.C. No. 7056 of 2003 as also in L.P.A. No. 194 of 2006. A Civil Review application bearing No. 55 of 2007 was also dismissed in default and the application bearing number MJC 403 of 2013 seeking restoration of the Civil Review No. 55 of 2007 also failed as the Division Bench of this Court was not satisfied with the submission of the petitioner that similarly situated employees has been taken back in service. The learned writ Court has found that the petitioner has failed at each stage whereas, the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 17039 of 2013 (Annexure-9) had succeeded in establishing a case of discrimination and there case was ordered to be considered by the authorities concerned afresh. Taking note of the position as to the regularization, the learned writ Court held that the benefit of regularization may be provided to those who are in service. This petitioner was terminated way back in the year 2002 and his prayer for reinstatement was rejected up to the Hon’ble Division Bench on the earlier occasion. Mr. Yugal Kishore, learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant has once again repeated the same argument which were before the learned writ Court but going through the materials available on the record and the impugned judgment, we find that there is no dispute on fact that the petitioner-appellant was terminated way back in the year 2002 and his prayer for reinstatement was rejected earlier up to the Hon’ble Division Bench and further the Hon’ble Division Bench had refused to restore the Civil Review Application. These orders in the earlier round of proceedings have attained finality. We do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the learned writ Court. No interference is called for. The Letters Patent Appeal has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed.” 6. After the dismissal of the appeal, the present Review Application has been filed contending that the plea of the appellant relating to a discriminatory treatment on the ground that similarly other situate and terminated employees had been taken back in service and offered regularization has been completely omitted to be considered and, therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of record which requires a review through this application. 7. 7. After having entertained the Review Application, we having heard learned counsel for the parties passed the following order on 30th of January, 2019: “Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of this Court to the order of the Division Bench in M.J.C. No. 4203 of 2013 dated 23rd August 2017. The same is Annexure-17 to the C.W.J.C. No. 9827 of 2016 along with supplementary affidavit filed in the said writ petition. The said order, on a perusal, indicates that the applicant had been pursuing his case and even though his writ petition and L.P.A. had been dismissed, he filed a restoration application that was dismissed by the order dated 23.08.2017 but with a liberty to the applicant to prosecute the writ petition filed earlier and was pending which is the writ petition the decision whereof has given rise to the present appeal. We have retrieved the order dated 4th July, 2012 from the High Court website that was passed in Civil Review No. 55 of 2007 which is extracted hereunder:- “On the last date when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner was not present. Today also no one appears to press this application. However, learned counsel for the State is present. This application is dismissed as not pressed.” It was for the restoration of the aforesaid Review Application No. 55 of 2007 that M.J.C. No. 4203 of 2013 had been filed. The order dated 23.08.2017 records that no useful purpose will be served by restoring the Review Application No. 55 of 2007 as the applicant has already filed a separate writ petition which was a fresh cause of action. We find from the record of the L.P.A. No. 1079 of 2008 that the applicant had brought on record the office order dated 26.11.2014 recording therein that 9 persons, who are similarly situate as the applicant and whose services had been terminated earlier, were reinstated and extended the said benefit. The fact, however, is that the writ petition filed by those appellants had been allowed whereas the writ petition filed by applicant in the earlier round of litigation had been dismissed against which he had filed the L.P.A. giving rise to Civil Review Application No. 55 of 2007. The fact, however, is that the writ petition filed by those appellants had been allowed whereas the writ petition filed by applicant in the earlier round of litigation had been dismissed against which he had filed the L.P.A. giving rise to Civil Review Application No. 55 of 2007. In the background aforesaid, prima-facie, we find that the observations of the Division Bench in the order dated 23.08.2017 indicates that it was left open for the applicant to advance his cause, more so, keeping in view the direction issued in another writ petition filed by the appellant being C.W.J.C. No. 4734 of 2015 where the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department on 9th July, 2015 had been commanded to consider the claim of the applicant in the light of the submissions raised therein. It is in this background that the order was passed on 17th December, 2015 which was assailed in C.W.J.C. No. 9827 of 2016 that was pending on the date when the order dated 23.08.2017 was passed. In our opinion, prima-facie, the issue, therefore, relating to the claim of the applicant stood revived in the said background and consequently the dismissal of his writ petition in the year 2002 that ultimately culminated in the filing of Civil Review No. 55 of 2007 stood superseded by the directions contained in Division Bench order dated 23.08.2017 giving leverage to the applicant to raise the issue of discrimination as indicated hereinabove. In the above circumstances, we are inclined to entertain this review application and we, accordingly, call upon the learned counsel for the State of Bihar to assist this Court in the light of the aforesaid facts which are on record. He may file any affidavit that may be required for the said purpose. Let the matter be come up on Wednesday next i.e. 6th of February, 2019.” 8. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party-State of Bihar and in Paragraph 12 of the said affidavit it has again been reiterated that the applicant’s case not being similar, he was not entitled to any such treatment, inasmuch as, the benefit of the notification dated 17th October, 2013 was available only to those who were in service. 9. 9. In our opinion, had it been so that the benefit had been extended only to those who were in service, the applicant would have had no case to advance but he has come out with a clear case that nine persons whose services stood terminated and who were not in service were extended the said benefit inspite of the said circular dated 17.10.2013 vide order dated 26.11.2014. It is this order dated 26.11.2014 which has been filed as Annexure-12 to the original writ petition that has been made the basis of review contending that the aforesaid document has been omitted to be considered and remains unanswered by the respondents till date. 10. It is this order dated 26.11.2014 which has been filed as Annexure-12 to the original writ petition that has been made the basis of review contending that the aforesaid document has been omitted to be considered and remains unanswered by the respondents till date. 10. In order to appreciate the aforesaid argument on the omission to consider the said document, we may extract the document dated 26.11.2014 in its entirety:- ^^fcgkj ljdkj iFk fuekZ.k foHkkx dk;kZy; vkns'k la[;k% 5@LFkkŒ&dkZHkkfjr ¼dk;Zokgh½&04&05@2014@iVuk] fnukad 26-11-2014 ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk esa nk;j ,eŒtsŒlhŒ uaŒ 287@2014 fxfjts'k dqekj ,oa vU; cuke fcgkj jkT; ,oa vU; ¼lhŒMCY;wŒtsŒlhŒ uaŒ 20697@2011 ls mn~Hkwr½ ,oa ,eŒtsŒlhŒ------@2014 fouksn dqekj ikloku ,oa vU; cuke fcgkj jkT; ,oa vU; ¼lhŒMCY;wŒtsŒlhŒ uaŒ 20831@2010 ls mn~Hkwr½ rFkk ,eŒtsŒlhŒ------@2014 fouksn dqekj flUgk ,oa vU; cuke fcgkj jkT; ,oa vU; ¼lhŒMCY;wŒtsŒlhŒ uaŒ 19210@2011 ls mn~Hkwr½ esa fnukad 12-3-2012 dks ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr U;k;kns'k ,oa foRr foHkkxh; ladYi la[;k&10710 fnukad 17-10-2013 esa fufgr 'krksZ ,oa Áko/kkuksa ds vkyksd esa dk;ZHkkfjr dkfeZ;ksa dks ftUgsa muds lEeq[k vafdr frfFk ls lsok ls dk;ZeqDr dj fn;k x;k gS] ls lacaf/kr vkns'k dks fujLr djrs gq, vkns'k fuxZr dh frfFk ls lsok esa cgky fd;s tkus dk funs'k fn;k tkrk gSA ØŒ la[;k dk;ZHkkfjr dehZ dk uke@inuke dk;ZHkkfjr LFkkiuk esa fu;qfDr dh frfFk lsok ls dk;ZeqDr dh frfFk ÁeaMy dk uke vapy dk uke 1 Jh fouksn dqekj flUgk] pkSdhnkj 1-1-1988 4-10-2010 iVuk flVh ou ÁeaMy xqytkjckx] iVuk dsUæh; vapy] iVuk 2 Jh fnus'k Álkn] iFk csyu [kyklh 12-8-1988 5-10-2010 iVuk flVh iFk ÁeaMy xqytkjckx] iVuk dsUæh; vapy] iVuk 3 Jh fxfjts'k dqekj flUgk] iFk csyu [kyklh 6-5-1988 18-9-2010 ubZ jkt/kkuh iFk ÁeaMy] iVuk dsUæh; vapy] iVuk 4 Jh f=os.kh dqekj flUgk] iFk etnwj 5-7-1988 20-9-2010 ubZ jkt/kkuh iFk ÁeaMy] iVuk dsUæh; vapy] iVuk 5 Jh fouksn dqekj iklou] jksyj [kyklh 5-5-1988 20-9-2010 ubZ jkt/kkuh iFk ÁeaMy] iVuk dsUæh; vapy] iVuk 6 Jh vfuy dqekj flUgk] pkSdhnkj 25-11-1988 18-9-2010 ubZ jkt/kkuh iFk ÁeaMy] iVuk dsUæh; vapy] iVuk 7 Jh jktdqekj pkS/kjh] iFk csyu [kyklh 30-7-1988 20-9-2010 ubZ jkt/kkuh iFk ÁeaMy] iVuk dsUæh; vapy] iVuk 8 Jh caxVs'oj ukFk] pkSdhnkj 5-5-1988 20-9-2010 ubZ jkt/kkuh iFk ÁeaMy] iVuk dsUæh; vapy] iVuk 9 Jhefr dkS'kY;k nsoh] iFk etnwj 26-4-1988 18-9-2010 ubZ jkt/kkuh iFk ÁeaMy] iVuk dsUæh; vapy] iVuk 2- mijksDr lHkh 9 ¼ukS½ dk;ZHkkfjr dfeZ;ksa dks dk;ZHkkfjr LFkkiuk esa lsok ls dk;ZeqDr fd;s tkus dh frfFk ls lsok esa cgky fd;s tkus dh vof/k ds fofu;eu ds ÁLrko ij foRr foHkkx dh lgefr ÁkIr djus ds mijkar foHkkxh; fu.kZ; lalwfpr fd;k tk;sxkA 3- ÁLrko esa Á/kku lfpo] iFk fuekZ.k foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk dks vuqeksnu ÁkIr gSA jkds'k eksgu mi&lfpo iFk fuekZ.k foHkkx] fcgkj] iVukA** 11. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar submits that it is evident from the said order that it came to be passed in compliance of directions issued in C.W.J.C. No. 20697 of 2011, C.W.J.C. No. 20831of 2010 and C.W.J.C. No. 19210 of 2011 that gave rise to a contempt application as well. It was, therefore, in order to ensure compliance that the aforesaid order came to be issued. 12. It is correct that the order does recite to that effect, but it further recites about the circular dated 17th October, 2013. 13. What is evident from the said chart is that the services of all the nine persons mentioned therein had been terminated on different dates in the year 2010 and they were then reinstated and then extended the said benefit. It is, therefore, evident that the applicant who had also filed a writ petition was entitled to the same benefits as has been extended to those nine persons. The learned Single Judge, therefore, in the impugned judgment dated 06.08.2018, extracted hereinabove, does not appear to have taken notice of the said fact and the same has also escaped the notice of this Court while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal. This, therefore, was a clear error apparent on the face of record and, accordingly, in view of the same, we allow this Review Application and recall the order dated 6th August, 2018 passed by the Division Bench and restore the Letters Patent Appeal to its original number. 14. We now proceed to dispose of the appeal as well as the writ petition in the light of what has been stated above. We have also heard learned counsel for the parties in the Letters Patent Appeal which involves the only question which has been raised before us on behalf of the applicant, namely, non-consideration of his claim at par with those whose services had been terminated and who have been reinstated and then extended the benefits of regularization. The said claim is clearly made out as the respondents have not been able to dislodge the fact of having extended benefits to nine persons whose services had also been terminated. The case of the appellant is similar and therefore cannot be discriminated. 15. The said claim is clearly made out as the respondents have not been able to dislodge the fact of having extended benefits to nine persons whose services had also been terminated. The case of the appellant is similar and therefore cannot be discriminated. 15. We set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.7.2018 and quash the order dated 17.12.2015, and further direct the first respondent to reconsider the claim of the appellant-applicant in the light of the observations made hereinabove and pass appropriate orders within three months of the date of presentation of the certified copy of this order. 16. The application as well as the Letters Patent Appeal both stands disposed of accordingly.