( 2025:JHHC:35666 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 796 of 2025 ------ Employees in relation to Management of All India Radio, Bhagalpur, P.O., P.S.-Bhagalpur, Dist.-Bhagalpur, Bihar … Petitioner Versus 1. Their Workmen Laxmi Narayan Yadav 2. Pradip Lal 3. Pradip Sah 4. Bhagwan Pandey 5. Bankim Chandra Sinha 6. Basuki Mitra Serial No.1 to 6 all resident of C/o Lakshmi Narayan Yadav, Village-Raghopor, Tikar, P.O.-Nathnagar, Dist.- Bhagalpur, Bihar 7. Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunnal (No.- 2), Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S.-Dhanbad, Dist.-Dhanbad … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Bakshi Vibha, Advocate For the Opp. Party Nos.2 to 5 : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Thakur, Advocate ------ Order No.04 Dated- 28.11.2025 Heard the parties. Notice issued to the opposite party no.1 has returned with the report that the opposite party no.1 has died. This civil miscellaneous petition has already been abated against the opposite party no.1 vide order dated 07.11.2025. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this civil miscellaneous petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioner for restoration of W.P. (L) No. 588 of 2006 to its original file which has been dismissed for default on 23.04.2024 for non- compliance of the order dated 20.02.2024. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that time was granted to the petitioner in W.P. (L) No. 588 of 2006 subject to deposit of cost of Rs.1,000/- within eight weeks but the learned counsel for the petitioner did not see the order and by the time the order came to the knowledge of the petitioner, the peremptory time had already expired. It is next submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said W.P. (L) No. 588 of 2006 and unless W.P. (L) No. 588 of 2006 is restored to its original file, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that W.P. (L) No. 588 of 2006 be restored to its original file. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 5 submits that the petitioner is in the habit of getting the writ petition dismissed once the same is restored only to frustrate the award and by this tactics the petitioner has managed to drag the writ petition for 19 years. Hence, the opposite party nos.2 to 5 be adequately compensated in terms of costs. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, W.P. (L) No. 588 of 2006 be readmitted to its original file to the stage at which, it was before its dismissal subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- each to each of the contesting opposite party nos.2 to 5, by the petitioner through their counsel appearing in the record, within six weeks, failing which, this conditional order shall not be given effect to and this civil miscellaneous shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench and consequently the said W.P. (L) No. 588 of 2006 shall remain dismissed. In case, the petitioner files the proof of payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- each to each of the contesting opposite party nos.2 to 5 by the petitioner, through their counsel appearing in the record within six weeks, list W.P. (L) No. 588 of 2006 under the appropriate heading after a week of filing the proof, before the appropriate Bench. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 28.11.2025 Sonu/Gunjan-