JUDGMENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners have made the following prayer: “for issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to count the services rendered by the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment in the year 1988 and 1991 till 09.11.2005 and reappointment on 18.07.2011 till their attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Technical Assistant as pensionable service and consequently grant pension, gratuity and other post-retirement benefit to the petitioners and also for grant of other consequential relief for which the petitioners are entitled in accordance with law.” 3. The brief facts of this case is that the petitioners were appointed as Technical Assistants in the Frozen Semen Bank Project, Animal Husbandry Department on temporary basis on 26.10.1988 and 09.05.1991 respectively. On 23.10.1998, the Government of Bihar declared such appointments made by the Regional Officers invalid and the petitioners were terminated after show cause, assuring age relaxation in future recruitment. Petitioners challenged the order in C.W.J.C. No. 11456 of 1998. 4. For the similar issue others also challenged the said order in C.W.J.C. No. 3503 of 1998 which was dismissed by order dated 18.07.2001. The matter was then tested up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP(C) No. 16598-16599 of 2001 and an interim order of “status quo” was passed vide order dated 08.10.2001. Thereafter, these cases were heard in Civil Appeal No. 5342-5343 of 2003 and disposed of with a direction upon the respondents to either re-appoint or regularise the appellants vide order dated 23.07.2003. The petitioner’s writ application was dismissed by Jharkhand High Court on 26.10.2005 and their services were terminated on 09.11.2005. In appeal, the Supreme Court on 10.04.2006 directed the respondents to fill up the vacancies through direct appointment and to include those who were appointed between 1988 to 1992 and then terminated in 1998. However, the petitioners were appointed afresh on 15.07.2011. The petitioners again filed I.A. No. 17 of 2012 before the Supreme Court seeking regularization from initial date of appointment between 1988 and 1992. The Court disposed the said interlocutory application on 29.11.2012 granting liberty to approach the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand. However, the petitioners were appointed afresh on 15.07.2011. The petitioners again filed I.A. No. 17 of 2012 before the Supreme Court seeking regularization from initial date of appointment between 1988 and 1992. The Court disposed the said interlocutory application on 29.11.2012 granting liberty to approach the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand. The petitioners then made representation to the respondent authority but no decision was taken and the petitioners preferred writ application being W.P.(S) No. 356 of 2015 which was also dismissed. Petitioner No. 1 retired on 31.03.2019 and Petitioner No. 2 on 31.12.2020. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have retired on 31.03.2019 and 31.12.2020 respectively and their representation dated 11.01.2025 and 21.01.2025 for pension fixation and other post retiral benefit counting their previous service remains unattended. He relied on the State Resolution No. 3014 dated 31.07.1980, which permits counting past service before break as pensionable. 6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioners were appointed afresh. He further submits that pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court there was fresh advertisement where these petitioners along with other candidates were allowed to appear and got selected. Learned counsel further submits that the State resolution upon which the petitioners have relied does not cover these petitioners, as there is exception that in cases of resignation, termination or strike the said benefit could not be given. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ Parmeshwar Nanda v. State of Jharkhand ” reported in (2020) 12 SCC 131 has observed that when a person has been freshly appointed, he is not entitled to the benefits of earlier service. Paragraph no. 26 of the said judgment is quoted below: “26. Since the appellants were absorbed as fresh appointees without pay protection and seniority, as a consequence thereof, they will not be entitled to count their past service rendered under the Project for the purpose of pension. We, thus, do not find any error in the order [ Bholanath Hansda v. State of Jharkhand , 2017 SCC OnLine Jhar 1387 : (2017) 3 AIR Jhar R 280] passed by the High Court which may warrant interference in the present appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.” 8. We, thus, do not find any error in the order [ Bholanath Hansda v. State of Jharkhand , 2017 SCC OnLine Jhar 1387 : (2017) 3 AIR Jhar R 280] passed by the High Court which may warrant interference in the present appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.” 8. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that these petitioners have been appointed pursuant to the fresh advertisement and only age relaxation and some weightage in respect of marks to the petitioners were given as the petitioners were earlier appointed. Since the petitioners have applied pursuant to the fresh advertisement and have been appointed as fresh candidates, they cannot get benefit of earlier service. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.