IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.969 of 2008 ANAND KUMAR JHA, S/O LATE KULDIP JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PALASI, P.O.-PALASI, P.S.- FARBISGANJ, DISTRICT- ARARIA ………. APPELLANT/PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA-15. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA-15 3. THE UNDER SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, 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, IRREGATION DIVISION NO.3, JAMUAI. 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, FLOOD CONTROL DIVISION, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, KARHAGOLA, KATIHAR ……….. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER. For the Appellant:- Mr. Basant Kr. Choudhary, Sr. Advocat Mr. Anant Kishor Lal Das, Advocate For the Respondents:- Mr. Panalal Kumar, S.C.-21 ----------- 03 22.12.2008 Writ petitioner/appellant aggrieved by the non-payment of his salary w.e.f. 16th of August, 2001 filed C.W.J.C. No. 2975 of 2002 before this Court. When the matter was taken up, stand was taken by the respondents of the writ application, that on an assumption that his appointment is not legal and valid, he was not being paid his salary. However, later on enquiry, it was found that the appointment of the petitioner is genuine. Taking note of the aforesaid fact, a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 2.4.2002 disposed off the writ application with direction to the respondents of the writ petition - 2 - to pay the admissible salary to the petitioner without delay. The Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, to the Government of Bihar, aggrieved by the aforesaid order preferred Civil Review No. 132 of 2002 before this Court. It was contended in the Review application that the appointment of the writ petitioner on compassionate ground is founded on fraud and forgery and the documents in support of the claim were forged and fabricated. Writ petitioner did not file any reply to the Review application, despite several opportunity given to him. Ultimately by order dated 6th of November, 2008 Review application was allowed and the order dated 2.4.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J. C. No. 2975 of 2002 was recalled and the writ petition dismissed. It is this order which is being assailed in the present appeal. Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that learned Judge while recalling the order passed in the writ petition erred in dismissing the writ petition itself. He submits that after recall of the order passed in the writ application the learned Judge ought to have directed the writ petition to be heard on merit. He points out that while reviewing the order and dismissing the writ application, no finding has been recorded by the learned Judge that petitioner secured appointment by fraud. Standing Counsel No.-21 however, submits that despite liberty given to the writ petitioner, he has not filed any reply and as such the learned Single Judge did not err in reviewing the order and - 3 - dismissing the writ application. We find substance in the submission of Mr. Choudhary. While reviewing the order, the learned Single Judge has not recorded any finding that the petitioner had obtained appointment by fraud and documents produced by him are forged or fabricated. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge, reviewing the order passed in the writ application may not be faulted, but in the absence of any finding he ought not to have dismissed the writ application. Now, the writ application shall be heard on merit and the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent that it had dismissed the writ petition is set aside. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed with the direction aforesaid. P.K. (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, ACJ.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)