Order : Deepak Roshan, J. The instant writ application has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs: “1) That through the instant writ application the petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate of writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) upon the respondent authorities: (i) to reinstate the petitioner since the date of verbally resaved from his service i.e on 21.06.2018, who was working since 04.05.2009 as daily wager on the sanctioned post of computer operator in the District Jail Chatra (Annexure-1), and all of sudden petitioner has been verbally removed on 21.06.2018 from his service without there being any fault on part of the petitioner, and appointed one new daily wages Computer operator by the respondent no.5 without taking orders/instruction from the Inspector General, Prisons, Jharkhand (Respondent no.3) which is as per law, as mentioned in Bihar Jail Manual in particularly as per Rule 61 corresponding to rule 21. (ii) further be pleased to quash the order dated 30.08.2018 as contained in letter no. 1015/ Jail issued by Jail Superintendent, District Jail Chatra, whereunder and whereby it has been directed to recover amount to the tune of Rs. 81,752/- only alleged to have been excess paid to the petitioner for the period 1.4.2017 to 20.3.2018 (Annexure-9). It would be pertinent to mention here that the petitioner was a daily wages employee working as Computer Operator in District Jail, Chatra. (iii) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authority to pay the admissible due to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.4.2015 in view of memo no. 6009 dated 1.10.2015 issued by Deputy Secretary General of to the Government of Jharkhand (Annexure-E of Annexure-4) issued to Inspector General of Prison, Jharkhand, Ranchi and circulated to all Superintendents of Jails of Jharkhand State, whereby it was directed to pay Rs. 16,480/- to the Data Entry Operator/Computer Operator working in different jail in the state of Jharkhand, which was also submitted by the Respondent no. 2 on W.P.S 6423/2014 by vide oath no. 23911 dated 26.08.2016 at paragraph 14 supported with Annexure-E of that Counter affidavit (Annexure-4). (iv) further be pleased to quash the Jail inspectorate, vide memo no. 86, office order dated 08.01.2019 issued by Inspector General Prisons, Jharkhand (Annexure-10), whereunder and whereby Respondent no. 3 rejected the representation of petitioner dated 09.08.2019 (Annexure-9) in the light of report submitted by the temporary charge Superintendent of district Jail chatra (Respondent no. (iv) further be pleased to quash the Jail inspectorate, vide memo no. 86, office order dated 08.01.2019 issued by Inspector General Prisons, Jharkhand (Annexure-10), whereunder and whereby Respondent no. 3 rejected the representation of petitioner dated 09.08.2019 (Annexure-9) in the light of report submitted by the temporary charge Superintendent of district Jail chatra (Respondent no. 5), which is totally false and vague, and even not investigate the fact independently by the Jail Inspectorate (Respondent no.3). And For any other relief or reliefs, which the petitioner is legally entitled for in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that though he was working regularly on daily wages before the Respondent no.5 but all of a sudden due to confusion about payment of salary, Annexure-9 to the writ application was issued and it was directed that Rs. 81752/- shall be recovered from the Petitioner. Further, vide Annexure-10 another order dated 08.01.2019 was issued which was pursuant to a representation made by the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that the Petitioner was making hindrance in the daily working of the jail; however, there is no formal order of termination on record. It only transpires from Annexure-10 to the writ application that the Petitioner was not working properly. 3. Even in the counter affidavit there is no document in order to demonstrate that before terminating the Petitioner from daily wages, he has been served show-cause. As per the Petitioner himself, he was a daily wages employee. However, there is nothing on record to suggest as to when he was appointed. Annexure-1 to the writ application only indicates that he was working as computer operator. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid facts; so far as recovery of amount is concerned, the petitioner fairly submits that the said order was stayed by this Court. This Court after going through the records of the case is of the firm opinion that the recovery of amount of Rs. 81752/- as indicated in Annexure-9 to the writ application, is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same was issued without any show-cause notice and without following principle of natural justice. As such, letter dated 30.08.2018 vide Annexure-9 to the writ application, is hereby, quashed and set-aside. 81752/- as indicated in Annexure-9 to the writ application, is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same was issued without any show-cause notice and without following principle of natural justice. As such, letter dated 30.08.2018 vide Annexure-9 to the writ application, is hereby, quashed and set-aside. If any recovery has been made pursuant to Annexure-9, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner along with interest from the date of recovery till the date of refund. 5. However, so far as reinstatement of the petitioner is concerned; as stated hereinabove, neither there is any document of appointment of the Petitioner; nor there is any order to indicate about termination of the Petitioner; however, only one document indicates that the Petitioner was working on daily wages. As such, interest of justice would be sufficed by directing the Petitioner to approach the 3 rd Respondent and raise his grievance with regard to the work even on daily wages by filing a fresh representation and the Respondent no.3 shall take a decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 6. It goes without saying that though notices were issued upon Respondent no.6, however, the same could not be served upon him and since this Court is not passing any order which would adversely affect Respondent no.6; as such, the instant writ application is disposed of without hearing Respondent no.6. 7. As a result, the instant writ application stands disposed of. 8. Pending I.As, if any, also stand disposed of.