IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7445 of 2010 Pradeep Narayan Jha, S/o Sri Ramesh Jha, resident of Mohalla Professor’s Colony (Ranbhoomi Maidan) P.S. Khazanchi Haat, District Purnea……………………………..………..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through the Commissioner- cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Water Resources Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gandak Project, Chhapra………………………………………….Respondents ----------- 2 09.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. This Court has entertained this writ application only because of an order of this Court passed in a batch of writ applications, including that of the petitioner, on 11.01.2010, a copy whereof is Annexure-18 with the writ application. The order shows that petitioners had moved this Court against their termination. There was some interim order passed earlier awaiting judgment of a Division Bench in L.P.A which was finally disposed of as reported in 2008(3) PLJR 363. In the light of that Division Bench judgment, learned counsel for the 2 respective petitioners sought to withdraw those writ applications to avail the internal/departmental remedy. Permission was granted, the interim order was vacated and writ applications were dismissed. Since the petitioner was also before this Court along with petitioners of other cases, that liberty stood granted to petitioner also. However, before he could file any representation before the concerned authority for consideration of his case, another order was passed by the Director, Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation dated 19.02.2010, again terminating his services in view of the said order of this Court dated 11.01.2010. Till then petitioner had not filed his representation. Therefore, there was nothing before the Director, Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation to reconsider his earlier order. In terms of the said order of this Court, petitioner filed representation before the Director on 15.03.2010, copy whereof is Annexure- 3 20. Admittedly, no final orders have been passed on the said representation of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Amrendra Prasad Yadav, with similar service history, had moved this Court and his writ application was disposed of by Annexure-23. Thereafter respondents have issued orders reinstating the said Amrendra Prasad Yadav in service. He submits that petitioner’s service history is identical to the service history of said Amrenda Kumar Yadav. This Court has not ventured to compare service history of the two incumbents, as this Court is of the view that, since liberty had been granted to the petitioner, pursuant to which he filed his representation, the same should be considered, for whatever worth it may be, and should be disposed of in accordance with law by a speaking order. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case of the petitioner, the 4 writ application is disposed of with a direction to the Director, Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation to consider representation of the petitioner, as contained in Annexure-20, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)