IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16555 of 2009 1. SMT.SHABNAM W/O SHRI ANIL KUMAR AMAL R/O VILL- PATHRAHA, P.O- DEVIGANJ, P.S- NARPATGANJ, DISTT- ARARIA, PIN CODE- 854335 Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ARARIA 3. JILA PANCHAYAT RAJ PADADHIKARI, ARARIA 4. THE B.D.O. NARPATGANJ, DISTT- ARARIA 5. SARPANCH, DARGAHIGANJ, BLOCK- NARPATGANJ, ARARIA 6. VICE-SARPANCH, DARGAHIGANJ, BLOCK-NARPATGANJ, ARARIA 7. SMT. ANITA KUMARI W/O SHRI ................................ R/O VILL- PATHRAHA, P.O- DEVIGANJ, P.S- NARPATGANJ, DISTT- ARARIA, PIN CODE- 854335 ----------- 2. 13.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was appointed as Secretary, Gram Kutchery when salary was not paid. She came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10291 of 2009, that she had filed a representation for the same before the District Magistrate which this Court directed to be disposed in accordance with law. The District Magistrate then considers her representation for grant of salary in light of the orders of this Court which finds reference in the very opening line of the order impugned dated 5.10.2009. What he was required to do was to decide whether she was entitled to salary or not. If in that process he found materials of alleged illegal appointment of the petitioner, the prudence of a reasonable man required the District Magistrate to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner of the illegalities in her appointment hear her 2 and then pass an order holding her to be all illegal appointee not entitled to salary much less her appointment and terminating the same. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was present and heard when the order was passed. That, to this Court shall not suffice, if the petitioner was to be visited with an adverse order. It was the duty of the District Magistrate to comply the basic principles of natural justice repeated by the Courts time and again which, unfortunately, the District Magistrate appears to have deliberately ignored. The order of the District Magistrate to say the least is very unfortunate in view of the repeated judicial pronouncement on an issue as simple as that of natural justice. The impugned order is further retrospective in nature and operates from nativity. This has been held illegal in A.I.R. 1966 Supreme Court 951 and by this Court in 1999(1) PLJR 69. The impugned order dated 5.10.2009 is set aside. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)