IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9700 of 2008 BALMIKI PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 09.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.3.2008 and the consequential order dated 12.6.2008 reverting him to the status of a daily wage employee which he held in 1980 after regularization/absorption by order dated 30.11.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after appointment on daily wages, the petitioner was inducted into the work charge establishment on 5.2.1988 with grant of increments etc. also. The petitioner came to this Court earlier with a claim for regularization, as one of the petitioners in CWJC No. 6514 of 2002 as was also a party-respondent in L.P.A. No. 122 of 2006 preferred against the same by the State of Bihar. The Division Bench in the aforesaid appeal and analogous cases gave a direction for constitution of a Committee for considering claims for regularization in accordance with law. In pursuance thereof the case of the petitioner was considered by the Committee constituted by the Government when a recommendation came to be made in his favour on 28.11.2006 for regularisation and consequential orders for regularisation were issued on 30.11.2006. The petitioner is now sought to be deprived of the benefit of the same for no justifiable reasons, much less disclosing the reasons to him and an 2 opportunity to him to meet the same before visiting him with adverse civil consequences of not only depriving the benefit of regularisation but reverting him to the status of daily wager, which he held in 1980. Learned counsel for the State sought to persuade the Court that the ground to reconsider the regularisation and pass the impugned notification on 28.11.2006 was occasioned due to certain errors discovered in light of certain orders passed by this Court in context of the claim preferred by certain other persons. The law stands settled by repeated judicial pronouncement that the principles of natural justice are necessary to be complied with before a Government servant can be visited with adverse civil consequences. Undoubtedly, what natural justice may mean shall depend upon the facts of a particular case and there can be no generalized yardstick. On the facts of the present case, it is apparent that once the Respondents, through a committee, considered the case of the petitioner, and communicated the same to him, regularized him, if he was to be deprived of the benefit of regularisation and reverted to the original status of a daily wager, he would be visited with adverse consequences. Even if the Respondents were of the opinion that the decision of the Committee for regularisation was erroneous on certain aspects, the Respondents were obliged to notice the petitioner spelling out the errors in its decision seeking his response and then take a final decision. If dissatisfied, it would 3 have been open for the petitioner to come for judicial review. Orders of the present nature by the Respondent-State Government clearly hinder judicial review and are what may euphemistically be termed as an attempt to jump the gun and generate litigation. The State is run by educated Officers who have an army of legal advisers to assist them. If the State still insists in exercise of its power contrary to law notwithstanding the law having been explained by the Courts repeatedly, this Court is left with no option except to set aside such orders on the grievance of citizens of the wrong done to them. Orders in violation of the principles of natural justice are akin to a still born child. They never come into existence. For reasons of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders dated 24.3.2008 and 12.6.2008 are set aside but without prejudice to the rights of the State. The writ application stands allowed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)