IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1380 of 1999 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Water Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Department of Water Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Koshi Sakari, District- Madhubani. 5. The Rehabilitation Officer, Koshi Project, Department of Water Resources, Supaul ---- Appellants (Respondent in C.W.J.C. No.4506/98). Versus 1. Roop Kant Paswan, Son of Sri Parmeshwar Paswan, resident of Village Dhanupura, Bhambhari Tola, P.O. Dhanpura, Via-Chakrwa Kothi, Police Station and Block Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District-Saharsa ------------- Respondent(writ petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.4506/98). ------------- 6. 11.8.2009 Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar, learned Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.9 for the appellants, and learned counsel for the respondent. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of High Court of Judicature at Patna, has been preferred by the State of Bihar, and is aggrieved by the order dated 15.9.1999, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.4506 of 1998 (Rup Kant Paswan Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), whereby the writ petition has been allowed and the order of termination of service as Chainman has been set aside. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The State Government prepared a scheme for ensuring employment to displace persons on account of erosion of Koshi river, rendering them homeless and impoverished. The scheme was incorporated in Government’s letter dated 2.4.1987. In implementation of the scheme, the writ petitioner was appointed as Chainman, vide order no.156, 2 dated 2.4.1987. The petitioner joined and started working. He was issued with a show-cause as to why his services be not dispensed with for which he had shown cause that he was a displaced person, and his case was supported by the certificate dated 17.12.1988, issued by the Rehabilitation Officer, Supaul. In stead of examining the merits of the claim raised by the writ petitioner in the cause shown by him, the respondent authorities (the appellants herein) rejected the same on the specious ground that the certificate had not been produced. In other words, there was no scrutiny of the petitioner’s case on merits. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we strongly feel that, in view of the petitioner’s claim that he was a displaced person having been displaced, having been deprived of his home and hearth, the authorities should not have taken such a heartless approach and ought to have proceeded to consider the same on merits. A junior employee like a Chainman may not have found it possible to obtain a copy of the certificate. It was most easy for the authorities to verify it from the Rehabilitation Officer, Supaul, who was in-charge of the affairs and issuance of the certificate. We are of the view that the impugned order dated 3.4.1998 (Annexure-1) dispensing with the services of the writ petitioner on the aforesaid ground is unreasonable, arbitrary, and fit to be set aside. We, therefore, agree with the learned Single Judge who has set aside the impugned order. As directed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner is reinstated in service with arrears of salary. In view of the arbitrary action of the authorities, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% on all his dues from the date the amounts became due till the date of payment. 3 The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid direction. Let a copy of this order be handed over to learned Additional Advocate General No.9. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. ) ( Jyoti Saran, J.)