IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10516 of 2009 RAJESHWAR KUNWAR Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr.Gautam Bose, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar, Miss. Ratna Das, Advocates For the respondents: Mr. Sudhir Singh, ASG, Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, CGC 2 26/8/2009 Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. As per order dated 13.1.2000 as contained in Annexure -9 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.236 of 1997, the direction was issued to the department to the following effect: “We have considered the entire matter in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and materials on record. In the above circumstances, the order as at Annexure A/1 is quashed and we dispose of this application by directing the respondents to consider the case of the applicant and pass reasoned order regarding his prayer for re-appointment/re-instatement in the light of the order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 27.3.1992 as at Annexure – A/7, whereby he has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him and in the light of the observation made above and in accordance with law. This exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” After the aforesaid order was passed the 2 department passed the following order as contained in Annexure -10: d`I;k ekuzuh; dsfUnz; iz’kklfud iVuk ds vkns’k fnukad ds vkyksd esa Jh jkts’oj dqWoj dks fu;qfDr i= tkjh djsa / in xzg.k ds iwoZ Jh dqWoj ds laca/k esa lacaf/kr FkkukizHkkjh ls vko’;d tkWp izfrosnuj vo’; ysa ,oa deZpkjh ls QkbMsyksth ok.M Hkjok ysa lkFk gh lsok laca/kh vko’;d fMLdzhQfVo fooj.kh iwjk djk ysa / inHkkj xzg.k ds ckn gh Jh jkts’oj dqWoj ds ofj;rk laca/h ekeys ij dkjokbZ fd;k tk;sxk / Subsequently, the department vide Annexure -2 issued order re-engaging the present petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.46 of 2003. His grievance therein was to the effect that instead of re-engaging he should have been re-instated in service. The order contained in Annexure -9, the relevant part of which we have quoted above, indicates that the Tribunal had called upon the department to give reasoned order but it appears that no reason as yet is furnished by the department. On the other hand, the petitioner has made a representation that he should be re-instated in stead of being re-engaged. In view of the aforesaid facts, we feel that the interest of justice will be served by observing that 3 the representation of the petitioner may be considered and a reasoned order may be passed as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that this court is not expressing any opinion in the matter. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Neyaz/ (P.K. Misra, CJ.) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)