IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6466 of 1995 HARE RAM CHOUDHARY & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioners:-Mr. Indu Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Senior Advocate & Mr.Shashi Nath Jha,Advocate For State:- Mr. Kumar Malendu Junior Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.VIII 13 2.7.2008 This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 11.1.1989 passed by the Executive Officer, Samastipur District Central Cooperative Bank,hereinafter referred to as the Bank. Petitioners earlier came to this Court challenging the aforesaid order . Said writ application was registered as CWJC No. 1831 of 1989 ( Shiv Narayan Jha and others vs. State of Bihar & ors). This Court by order dated 24.6.1991 disposed of the writ application with the following direction:- “5. Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner should produce a certified copy of this order alongwith a petition before the competent authority of the Bank who shall issue 2 notice to the petitioners to show cause as to why their appointment be not cancelled on the ground enumerated in the notice within one month before the date of filing of the petition. The petitioners if they so like may accept the notice. Thereafter the petitioners should file their show cause before the competent authority. After the filing of the show cause the concerned authority shall decide the matter within two months in accordance with law. In case, the authority comes to the conclusion that there were no irregularities/illegalities in the appointments, in that event the order contained in Annexure-4, shall be recalled and the petitioners shall be paid entire arrears of salary from the date of passing of the order (Annexure-4) till the date of the recall order is passed, which payment must be made within six weeks from the date of passing of the recall order. In case, however, the authority comes to the conclusion that there were illegalities/irregularities in the appointments the question of recall of order contained in Annexure 4 does not arise and the petition for recall shall be liable to the rejected.” In the light of the aforesaid direction show cause notice was given to the petitioners to which they replied. Thereafter the respondents-Bank sought guidance of the Registrar Cooperative 3 Societies which has given its opinion. It is the grievance of the petitioners that till date Respondent-Bank has not passed any order. Mr. Indu Shekhar Prasad Sinha, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the Respondent-Bank having not passed any order, petitioners can challenge the order of termination passed earlier. We are not inclined to accept his submission. Petitioners challenged the order of termination earlier. This Court did not interfere with the order of termination but directed that appropriate orders be passed after giving show cause notice to the petitioners. In case no order has been passed in the light of the direction of this Court the order of termination shall not be rendered invalid. However, in view of the stand taken by the petitioners that final order 4 has not been passed, we deem it expedient that the respondent-Bank passes final order within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. However, in case the respondent-Bank had already passed the order and not communicated to the petitioners earlier, same be communicated to them. Needless to state that in case order goes adverse to the petitioners, they shall have liberty to assail the same in accordance with law. Writ application stands disposed off accordingly. (Chandramauli Kr.Prasad,J.) (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.) A.Kumar