IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18405 of 2009 1. DILIP KUMAR JHA S/O SUSHIL JHA R/O VILL TEHRI, P.S.ANDHA TARI, DISTT-MADHUBANI 2. UDAY NATH JHA S/O LATE BAIDYA NATH JHA R/O TEHRI, P.S. ANDHA TARI, DISTT-MADHUBANI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR , THROUGH THE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR , SICHAI BHAWAN, PATNA 2. THE JOINT SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, SICHAI BHAWAN, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR , LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR , SICHAI BHAWAN, PATNA ----------- 2. 31.03.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioners contend that they were appointed on 16.6.1988 in the Swarn Rekha Project but were retrenched. Thereafter they were reappointed on 30.3.1989 and 1.6.1989 after consideration and recommendation by the Establishment Committee. Their services came to be terminated again by an order dated 24.12.2002. They preferred CWJC No. 863 of 2004.This Court noticing the objection of the State that the appointment was not irregular but illegal nonetheless gave direction for consideration of their case in light of judgment reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 (Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors Vs Uma Devi & ors) more particularly Paragraph 44 of the judgment in the light of claim of long continuance by the petitioners. LPA No. 973/2006 preferred by the State against the same came to be dismissed. The impugned order dated 27.5.2009 has now been passed purportedly after consideration of the case of the petitioners in light of the order in CWJC No. 863 of 2004. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order is exparte in nature in arriving at a finding of alleged illegality in the appointment when it is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed as retrenched employees by the Establishment Committee. The impugned order does not even notice the fact that they were appointed in their capacity as retrenched employees. Moreover, no show cause on the ground of illegality in the appointment was given to the petitioner. Had such opportunity been given the petitioners may have shown cause. At this stage, this Court is not concerned whether the explanation of the petitioners would be acceptable or not acceptable, this Court is concerned with the matters of procedure in the decision making process. The Court is satisfied that the impugned order is not sustainable on the simple ground that if reflects exparte consideration and conclusion to indict the petitioners without furnishing them the materials and opportunity to meet the same. The order dated 26.5.2009 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation of the Water Resources Department to take a fresh decision in accordance with law particularly in terms of the directions given in CWJC No. 863 of 2004 as affirmed in LPA No. 973 of 2006 within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)