IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.235 of 2009 PRABHA DEVI, W/O LATE ARJUN KUMAR, AT PRESENT R/O VILLAGE-SHYAMPUR, P.S.-SUGOULI, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN (MOTIHARI). ADDRESS W.E.F.WRIT APPLICATION W/O LATE ARJUN KUMAR, HOUSE NO.111, GANDHI PATH, S.K.PURI, PATNA-13. …………PETITIONER. Versus 1. AMITA KUMARI @ MINTU 2. ABHIMANYU KUMAR MINOR UNDER GUARDIANSHIP OF SAROJ SRIVASTAVA (THE SO-CALLED DAUGHTER AND SON OF LATE ARJUN KUMAR), BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-SHYAMPUR, P.O.-FULWAR, P.S.-SUGOULI, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN (MOTIHARI). 3. STATE OF BIHAR 4. CHIEF ENGINEER, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SPECIAL RANGE, PATNA. 5. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SPECIAL CIRCLE, SAHARSA. 6. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA. …………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 6 20.07.2011 While disposing of the writ application by the order under review, this Court had given liberty to the official respondents to enquire and find out, as a fact, whether the writ petitioners were the children of the deceased employee from his alleged second wife, and if they were satisfied about the same, to pass orders for apportionment of gratuity and pension with payment of arrears also. This order was passed in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2000 (2) PLJR 15 (SC) wherein it is held that the children 2 of illegitimate wife are also entitled to monetary benefits accruing upon death of a government employee. It was for the official respondents to come to a finding that the writ petitioners were in fact illegitimate child of the deceased employee. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner, i.e. the first wife, submits that official respondents have passed orders behind her back and have ordered for recovery of the amount paid in excess to her towards gratuity etc. of the deceased employee for payment to the writ petitioners. If the orders have been passed against the review petitioner behind her back she is definitely entitled to request the official respondents to re-consider the matter and consider her stand. This liberty was inherent in the orders of this Court as it is settled law that any adverse order of any authority must precede a show cause notice or opportunity to the concerned party against the proposed order which is likely to affect him/her. 3 This Court does not find any ground for review of the order as that liberty was available to the review petitioner and that duty was enjoined upon the official respondents before passing any final orders. The review petitioner is at liberty even today to approach the official respondents to re-consider the matter after hearing her and considering her stand. It is made clear that, if the review petitioner approaches the official respondents within four weeks from today and the official respondents finds that earlier review petitioner was neither noticed nor got an opportunity to appear before them and take her stand, they shall be obliged to take a fresh decision in the matter within two months thereafter, after hearing her. The review application is disposed of. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)