3. The petitioner was appointed as daily wager and later on, as per the petitioner, he was regularized in service vide memo no. 21 dated 07.01.1989 on temporary basis, which was challenged by one Mahesh Prasad Mandal and others in C.W.J.C. No.9398 of 2000, seeking relief for quashing the order dated 19.08.2000, thereby their services as daily wagers was terminated and sought the relief of reinstatements. This Court vide order dated 09.01.2001 refused to interfere with the order and given liberty for consideration of their appointment in future. However, the Court directed for payment of salary for the period they discharged the duty. That order led to termination of service of the petitioner, which was challenged by him in C.W.J.C. No. 12781 of 2003 (Nand Lal Prasad and Anr. vs. State of Bihar and Ors.) and this Court, in Single Bench, refused to interfere with the order as followed the same ratio as that of C.W.J.C. No.9398 of 2000. That order of the Single Bench was challenged in L.P.A. No.137 of 2009 and the Division Bench has disposed of the said L.P.A. with a direction for consideration of their regularization. As per the petitioner it is an order of mandamus for respondents, but on reading the entire order, it does not reflect that the Court has issued the writ of mandamus . It will be relevant to quote entire order dated
