Amareshwar Sahay, J.

1. The present writ petitioners alongwith 15 other filed CWJC No. 13043 of 1993 before the Patna High Court, claiming regularisation in the Health Department of Government of Bihar. The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 23.9.2004. All the 20 writ petitioners including the present 5 petitioners of this writ application preferred SLP before the Supreme Court, which after grant of leave was converted into civil appeal No. 8336 of 1997. The Supreme Court disposed of the said appeal with certain directions. The judgment of the Supreme Court is reported in, 1998 (1) PLJR (SC) 17, Arun Kr. Rout and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. Form perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court as aforesaid, it appears that the Apex Court has noted the following facts of the case. The facts noted in the judgment are reproduced hereinbelow :--

"The writ petition filed by the appellants, 20 in number, claiming regularisation in the Health Department of the Government of Bihar was dismissed by the impugned judgment. All the said 20 appellants were appointed on 1st of January, 1980 by the Civil Surgeon, Dumka in Class III and Class IV posts as daily wagers. On 30th March, 1989 the appointments of the appellants were regularised on the recommendation of the Appointment Committee. On 25.8.1993 the District Level Establishment Committee issued show cause notices to the appellants asking them to show cause why their appointments should not be cancelled in view of the fact that they got irregular appointments. Ultimately on 14.10.1993 the services of the appellants were terminated. It has been found as a matter of fact that at the time of initial appointment, no advertisement had been given and the names of these appellants were also not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. There is, however, no dispute that they are not lacking in requisite qualifications for appointment to the respective posts in Class HI or Class IV. There is also nothing on record to suggest that, in obtaining the said appointments the appellants were guilty of any fraud or privy to any irregularity. Although in the matter of getting appointment in the Government Service, the procedure required to be followed for such appointments cannot be bypassed and if the initial appointment was illegal on account of not following the procedure for appointment, the incumbent obtaining appointment without following due procedure cannot claim as a matter of right to be regularised. This Court, however, has looked with sympathy when question of regularisation came for consideration in case of temporary or ad hoc appointments, even made improperly, if the incumbents had been allowed to continue for a long time because of the human problem involved in such continued service. In the instant case, all the appellants after getting appointments continued for more than five years and it also appears from the records of the case that they got salary initially for a few months and thereafter continued in service without getting any salary whatsoever from 1989 upto some period of 1992. Thereafter the salary had been paid to them until the services were terminated. It may be stated that there is nothing on record to suggest that the service rendered by the appellants was otherwise unsatisfactory. It may also be stated that such salaries had been paid to these appellants after a departmental inquiry indicating that even though there were irregularities in the appointment but the appellants had requisite qualifications for the respective post to which they were appointed. (underlining is mine for emphasis).

2. After noticing the above facts, the Supreme Court disposed of the aforesaid civil appeal with the following observation and direction.

"Although the" appellants had not been appointed by following the due procedure and, therefore, they cannot claim regularisation as a matter of course but considering the fact that they had satisfactorily served the department even w