IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10094 of 2002 VISHWANATH RAI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6. 17.03.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner retired from the service of the unified State of Bihar as a Correspondence Clerk in the office of the Superintending Engineer (Design), Planning and Monitoring Circle, Daltonganj, Palamu on 30.6.2000. He came to this Court for his post retirement benefit in CWJC NO. 10521 of 2000. On 23.10.2000 he was directed by this Court to submit an exhaustive representation before the authority in terms of certain general directions of this Court What he got in return was further litigation that the first time bound promotion granted to him with effect from 13.10.1983 by order dated 29.8.1986 has been withdrawn. Learned counsel for the State sought to raise a preliminary objection that the orders having been passed by an authority now in the State of Jharkhand, after the appointed day of 15.11.2000, the writ application should appropriately be filed before the Jharkhand High Court. As the petitioner retired from the unified State of Bihar, he is drawing his pension from the State of Bihar after superannuation. The impugned order dated 21.2.2002 is in pursuance of the order of this Court in CWJC No. 10521 of 2000. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner is a retired person with limited resources available to him for his survival. 2 The admitted position emerging from the impugned order itself is that it does not discuss any show cause notice given to the petitioner before withdrawing the benefit of time bound promotion. The filing of a representation by the petitioner for release of his pension is held by this Court not to be sufficient justification for Respondents on that basis to pass an order adverse to the petitioner visiting him with civil consequences on an issue which may not have been a subject matter of the representation filed for purposes of release of pension only. The Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1974 Supreme Court 1471 (Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. State of Gujarat) has held that an order in violation of the principles of natural justice is like a still born child which never comes into existence. This Court holds that the impugned order dated 21.2.2002 is nonest for that reason and requires only a formal pronouncement of illegality, which this Court does. Any consequential orders, therefore, are also nonest. This shall be without prejudice to the rights of the Respondents to proceed in accordance with law, if he so desires. The writ application stands allowed. The order dated 21.2.2002 stands quashed. AKS/- (Navin Sinha,J.)