IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11366 of 1996 SRI SANJAY KUMAR & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr Ranjan Kumar, JC to AAG 4 -------- 6. 12.08.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of their termination dated 7.9.1996 bearing no. 726 at Annexure 1 series issued by the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Magadh Range, Gaya. Learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that the cut of date 21.2.1992 has been fixed subsequently by an order dated 18.4.1996 of the authorities. That therefore to contend that the petitioners were appointees after 21.2.1992 would amount to a termination with retrospective effect which was not permissible in law. That the appointments were valid under the then existing government notifications and circulars. That the services had been terminated without following the basic principles of natural justice by giving opportunity to the petitioners to meet the illegality as specifically stated ion Para 15 and 16 of the writ application. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents despite long passage of time since filing of the writ petition on 30.10.1996 and grant of adjournment for the purpose. This Court therefore is not persuaded to grant further adjournment but disposes of this writ application on the principles of non traverse in so far as the allegations of violation of principles of natural justice are concerned. The impugned orders of termination are therefore set aside only for the limited purpose as detailed hereinafter. This shall not result in immediate reinstatement of the petitioners. The respondents shall be obliged to give adequate hearing to the petitioners and pass final appropriate order thereupon in accordance with law within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before them. In the event that they propose to pass an order prejudicial to the petitioners they shall be required to pass a reasoned and speaking order. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)