ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 10.11.2000 issued by the Executive Engineer, PHED, Godda whereby the services of the petitioner has been terminated. 3. Petitioners ease is that sometimes in 1984 a portion of the land belonging to his father was taken by the PHED Deptt. Godda under the Water Supply Scheme under an agreement with the father of the petitioner to give employment in lieu of the acquisition of the land. The petitioner was accordingly given temporary posting as keyman-cum-chaukidar in the PHED department. The petitioner continuously served on temporary basis till 1986. Again in 1990 the petitioner was given appointment on the same post and he continued on the said post. In 1998 he filed a writ application being CWJC No. 11357/98 in the Patna High Court for regularisation of his serviees. During the pendency of the said writ application the impugned order of termination was served upon him vide letter dated 10.11.2000. 4. This Court, by order dated 2.8.2000 directed the petitioner to withdraw the said writ application No. 11357/98(R) filed in the Patna High Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid writ application was withdrawn by the petitioner. 5. The respondents in their counter-affidavit have admitted that the land belonging to the petitioner was acquired in 1984 and in lieu thereof the petitioner was given employment in 1984. In 1986 the petitioner was stopped from work but in 1990 he was again appointed on the post of keyman-cum-chaukidar and he worked continuously without any break till 2000. 6. From perusal of the counter-affidavit it appears that the respondents have nowhere stated that for the aforesaid land any compensation was either paid to the petitioner or his father, rather, they admit that the petitioner was given employment in lieu of the land given by the father of the petitioner to the respondents. Admittedly, therefore, the land of the petitioner was taken by the respondents in 1984 and in lieu thereof the petitioner was given service in 1984 but it was discontinued in 1986. However, the petitioner was again taken into service in 1990 and since then he continuously worked till 2000 when the impugned order of termination was issued. 7. Admittedly, therefore, the land of the petitioner was taken by the respondents in 1984 and in lieu thereof the petitioner was given service in 1984 but it was discontinued in 1986. However, the petitioner was again taken into service in 1990 and since then he continuously worked till 2000 when the impugned order of termination was issued. 7. In the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that there is no justification for the respondents to terminate the services of the petitioner. This writ application is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order of termination of the services of the petitioner is set aside. The respondents are directed to immediately reinstate the petitioner in service and further take a final decision for regularisation of the services of the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.