IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4070 of 2008 Lalan Kumar, S/o Sri Suresh Prasad, resident of village Chaksai, P.S. Dhanarua, District Patna…………………………………………………………………………..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 4. District Magistrate, Patna. 5. Deputy Development Commissioner – cum - Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Patna. 6. District Superintendent of Education, Patna. 7. Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Masaurhi, District Patna. 8. Block Education Extension Officer, Dhanarua, Masaurhi, Patna. 9. Block Development Officer, Dhanarua, Masaurhi, Patna. 10. Gram Panchayat, Moryawan through its Mukhiya, Moriyawan, Masaurhi, Patna. 11. Mukhiya, Moryawan Gram Panchayat, Dhanarua, Masaurhi, Patna. 12. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Moryawan, Dhanarua, Masaurhi, Patna. 13. Headmaster, Primary School, Chaksai, Dhanarua, Masaurhi, Patna……………………Respondents ----------- 3. 06.07.2011 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Initially, petitioner had filed this writ application against termination of his services as Panchayat Teacher. However, I.A. No.6916 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioner bringing on record an order of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Patna dated 01.08.2008, as contained in Annexure- 2 10 with the interlocutory application, from which it appears that the matter of the petitioner was re-examined and it was found that his termination was illegal. Hence, order terminating his services has been withdrawn and he has been directed to be reinstated from the date of his termination itself. However, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the interlocutory application has been filed for modification of prayer portion in the writ application to the extent that petitioner should be held entitled for arrears of honorarium from the date of his termination till his reinstatement which has been denied by the order of the Deputy Development Commissioner. No one appears for the respondents. There is no opposition to the interlocutory application. The I.A is, therefore, allowed. Since the main grievance of the petitioner in respect of his termination stands redressed, to that extent the writ application has become infructuous. However, so far prayer for direction 3 to the respondents to pay arrears of his honorarium of the period from the date he was terminated till he was reinstated, is concerned, this Court is not inclined to pass any mandamus at this stage. This Court is of the considered view that if an illegal order of termination is quashed by this Court or withdrawn by the authorities, official of the Government, who had passed the said illegal order, should be held liable for compensating the petitioner on account of that illegal termination. For this purpose, Head of the Department should get an enquiry held, fix responsibility, notice to the concerned officer and then pass appropriate orders for compensating the petitioner from salary of the concerned official. For this purpose, petitioner is granted liberty to file a representation before the Head of the Department. The writ application is disposed of as infructuous. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)