IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.612 of 2008 AMULYA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 01/12/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 31.12.2005 and 21.5.2007 asking him to show cause as to why certain amount of payments made to him on the post of correspondence clerk during the specified period may not be recovered from him. The petitioner was initially appointed as a tracer when it is his case that pursuant to clearing the departmental examination he came to be appointed as a correspondence clerk on 2.6.1978. From the records of the writ petition it appears that his appointment to the post of correspondence clerk was terminated on 11.9.1981 on the ground that prescribed procedures were not followed. He has again been appointed as a correspondence clerk on 31.8.1983, a fact not in dispute in the counter affidavit. 2 The issue now relates to the wages drawn by him in the scale of a correspondence clerk found to be illegal and terminated in 1981. While the petitioner relies upon Annexure-9 dated 16.7.1991 to state that his appointment on the post of correspondence clerk was in accordance with law, Learned counsel for the State refers to Annexure-6 dated 11.9.1981 to contend that the appointment was not in consonance with law. Dealing with the letter dated 16.7.1991 at paragraph-16 of the counter affidavit it states that it required no comments. This Court does not consider the same as adequate justification to uphold the impugned orders. This writ petition is disposed with the direction to the respondents that before implementing the impugned orders they are required to pass a reasoned and speaking order showing adequate consideration and application of mind to the orders dated 11.9.1981 and 16.7.1991. It is directed that no coercive measures shall be 3 taken for recovery against the petitioner till such time that a fresh reasoned and speaking order is not passed by the respondents. It is made clear that the impugned orders shall have no relevance except to the extent of operating as a show cause notice. Let such consideration and decision be completed within a maximum period of four months from the date that the petitioner submits his representation/explanation along with a copy of this order. If the petitioner does not file any such representation/explanation within a maximum period of one month from today, the impugned orders shall require no interference and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)