IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16541 of 2007 GORAKHNATH UPADHYAY & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 08.09.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 19.9.2007 at Annexure 1. It annuls the pay protection granted to the petitioners with effect from 1.10.1997 by order dated 29.7.2006. It is apparent from Annexure 5 that in consequence of certain juniors having been promoted on the post of Headmaster, the question of pay protection to persons otherwise senior, like the petitioners, came to be considered when it was decided appropriately to grant them pay protection in terms of the aforesaid order dated 29.7.2006 and the order was dully communicated to all concerned persons including the petitioners. Learned Counsel assailing the order dated 19.9.2007 submitted that the petitioners had in fact filed their response to the show cause notice issued to them on 31.8.2007 and that the replies submitted are presently at Annexures 7 to 10 of the present writ application. He additionally submits that the impugned order dated 19.9.2007 annuls the order dated 29.7.2006 for the only reason that the petitioners are alleged not to have filed replies to their show cause notice. The fact that any representation may have been filed before the Chairman of the Legislative Council and who may have issued any instruction subsequently does not detract from the duty of the respondents concerned to pass a reasoned and speaking order which is completely lacking. No reasons have been stated for annulment of the pay protection granted after consideration. The issue of alleged incompetence of the R.D.D.E. to issue directions for the impugned order is not necessary to be decided at this stage. Be that as it may, whether the petitioners filed their response to the show cause notice or not looses its relevance in view of their replies available at Annexures 7 to 10 to the writ application. The order of annulment dated 19.9.2007 being non-speaking in nature disclosing no reason is not sustainable and on that ground also the order dated 19.9.2007 is accordingly quashed. Let the competent respondent pass a fresh order reasoned and speaking in accordance with law within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)