IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.143 of 2007 PREM CHANDRA OJHA & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Banwari Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. S.K. Ghosh, AAG II -------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 12th September, 2008. On 28th August, 2008, this court passed the following order: “Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that Yesterday a second supplementary show-cause has been filed in the office. The office is directed to locate the same and place it on record. It has been submitted that clear averments have been made in the second supplementary show-cause disclosing that out of 245 remaining cases 236 have already been examined by the concerned Committee and the report of the Committee has also been annexed as Annexure-A/8 to the said show- cause. In respect of remaining nine cases the Committee was of the view that one additional opportunity by way of last chance should be given to the concerned persons and therefore a fresh notice through press has been published in the Hindi daily “Hindustan” dated 26.08.2008 . According to notice one week time has been given to the petitioners of nine cases whose numbers have been mentioned in the notice. It has been submitted that after the said period of one week expires the Committee will need at least one more week to dispose of those remaining cases in accordance with the direction of the Writ Court. In that effect, the State has prayed for two weeks further time to comply with the order of the Division Bench. In the facts and circumstances, by way of last opportunity two weeks further time is granted to the State and its - 2 - authorities to dispose of the remaining nine cases and also other cases if they are pending and have remained undecided on account of any error land if the petitioners have filed contempt to that effect or if they have filed representation to that effect. But the aforesaid observations should not be construed as an excuse to reopen any case which has already been decided. The grievance has been raised on behalf of the petitioners that although the authorities are claiming that they have decided/disposed of almost all the cases except nine but the concerned employees have not been communicated with the decisions taken in their cases. On behalf of the State it has been submitted that through press communiqué the decisions have been notified but they have not been communicated individually . Sometimes, communication through press may also be sufficient but in the present case since the employees are known to have at least their last working addresses or in many cases their permanent addresses, the State shall make effort to communicate the outcome of their scrutiny in each case to be concerned employees. Put up this matter on 11th of September, 2008 and on that date another affidavit to show complete compliance with the order of the Division Bench should be filed failing which the Secretary and the Director, Health Services shall be present.” 2. The counsel for the petitioners submits that so far petitioners have not been communicated the outcome of the scrutiny in their case and the order has not been supplied to them. 3. By way of supplementary show cause dated 10th September, 2008, it is sought to be brought to the notice of the court that nine cases which remained to be decided, have now been decided. 4. There is some merit in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the order must be communicated by the respondents to each of the petitioners within reasonable time for which an order has already been passed. - 3 - 5. Pursuant to order dated 12th August, 2008, by this time, the state authorities must have communicated to the individual petitioners the outcome of the scrutiny with a copy of the order. 6. Be that as it may, we, now, direct the respondent no. 3 to communicate the order to each of the petitioners through the respective Civil Surgeons as expeditiously as possible but in no case, later than three weeks from today. 7. With the aforesaid observation, M.J.C. stands disposed of. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/