JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel for the respondent-State and Mr. Chandra G.A. Bardhan, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5. 2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard on merit. 3. This petitioners have preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents to regularize their services. 4. Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent no.5 is a Government organization established under the provisions of Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act, now Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 2001. He further submits that petitioner no.1 was appointed on sanctioned vacant post of Peon on 06.03.1989. He further submits that since the appointment of petitioner no.1, he has put in more than 29 years of regular service. He further submits that petitioner no.2 was appointed on sanctioned vacant post of Typist-cum-Clerk (now Computer Operator) on 31.01.2002 in the office of respondent no.5 initially on daily wages from 2002 to 2007 and since 2008 till the date on contract. He further submits that petitioner no.2 has put in more than 17 years of regular unblemished service continuously and he is still working. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that petitioner no.3 was initially appointed on the sanctioned vacant post of Driver on 01.12.1989 on daily wages and on contract basis since 2007 till date in the office of respondent no.5. Petitioner no.3 has put in more than 29 years of unblemished continuous service. He further submits that petitioner no.4 was appointed on sanctioned vacant post of Stenographer-cum-Private Secretary of Managing Director on contract on 01.12.2002. Petitioner no. 4 has been working for more than 16 years without there being any complaint against her. He further submits that petitioner no.5 was appointed on sanctioned vacant post of Moharir on 01.11.1989 on daily wages/contract. Petitioner no.5 has also put in more than 29 years of continuous unblemished service till date in the office of respondent no.5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners were appointed after due diligence. He further submits that petitioner no.5 was appointed on sanctioned vacant post of Moharir on 01.11.1989 on daily wages/contract. Petitioner no.5 has also put in more than 29 years of continuous unblemished service till date in the office of respondent no.5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners were appointed after due diligence. He also submits that in view of long association with respondent nos. 4 and 5, they need to be regularized. He further submits that the case of these petitioners is fully covered with the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238 as well as in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 . He further submits that the case of the petitioners can be considered in view of paragraph 53 of the judgment reported in the case of Uma Devi (supra). 5. Mr. Chandra G.A. Bardhan, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5 submits that if the petitioners will file fresh representation before respondent nos. 4 and 5, they will consider the case of the petitioners and will take a decision in accordance with law and in light of the decisions which are referred herein above. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent nos. 4 and 5 to consider the case of the petitioners taking into account long association of the petitioners with respondent nos. 4 and 5. If the petitioners approach respondent nos. 4 and 5 by way of filing fresh representation within six weeks from today, respondent nos. 4 and 5 shall take a final call on the representation of the petitioners and will take a decision taking into account the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra) and Uma Devi (supra) within a period of six weeks thereafter. It goes without saying that if respondent nos. 4 and 5 come to finding in favour of the petitioners, necessary benefit will be provided to the petitioners within four weeks thereafter. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of.