IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.132 of 2002 1) COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA-15 2)THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT , PATNA-15 3)THE UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT , PATNA-15 4) THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, DEOGHAR 5) THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, PURNIA 6) THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, IRRIGATION DIVISION NO.3, JAMUI. 7) THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, FLOOD CONTROL DIVISION, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, KARHAGOLA, KATIHAR.----------------RESPONDENTS……………………… REVIEW PETITIONERS Versus ANAND KUMAR JHA, SON OF LATE KULDIP JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PALASI, P.O.-PALASI, P.S.-FORBISGANJ, DISTRICT-ARARIA ----------- FOR RESPONDENTS (REVIEW PETITIONERS) :-MR. SATISH CHANDRA JHA, JC TO GP-9 FOR RESPONDENTS :- NONE 6/ 6-Nov-08 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Nobody appears on behalf of the sole respondent (writ petitioner). On behalf of the State of Bihar, Secretary, Department of Water Resources and other officials who were respondents in CWJC No.2975/02 have preferred this review petition for review of order dated 2.4.2002 (Annexure-1). A perusal of Annexure-1 shows that the aforesaid writ petition preferred by the sole respondent was disposed of by a very short order on the basis of verbal submissions of learned counsel for the respondents that validity of appointment of the petitioner was under cloud and therefore he was not paid salary but after some enquiry the 2 appointment was found genuine and therefore order for payment of salary was likely to be issued soon. The stand of the petitioners who are seeking review is clear and categorical that the entire claim of the writ petitioner that he was appointed on compassionate ground as peon on the basis of office order bearing Memo No.1837 dated 13.10.1997 (Annexure-1 to the writ application) is based upon fraud and forgery and his other supporting documents contained in Annexure-2,3,4 and 9 are also based upon forged and fraudulent letter of appointment and unreliable. In spite of notice and opportunity given to the counsel to the sole respondent, no reply has been filed to the review petition and today nobody appears on behalf of sole respondent. In the facts of the case, the prayer for review is allowed. The order dated 2.4.2002 contained in Annexure-1 to the review petition is reviewed and recalled. The writ petition of the sole respondent bearing CWJC. No.2975 of 2002 will stand dismissed. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)