JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Public Services Tribunal allowing the claim petition filed by opposite party Nos. 5 and 6 and the order, dated September 28, 1978, passed by Public Services Tribunal in the claim petition tiled by opposite party No. 5 in which directions were given to the opposite parties to refix the seniority and pay etc. of the claimant in the present post in accordance with Paragraph 3 of appointment letter, dated March 26, 1966 and in accordance with the rules and order passed by Chief Engineer, dated April 20, 1979 (Annexure 7) by which seniority was fixed and the orders, dated July 27. 1979 contained in Annexure 7 and August 29, 1979 contained in Annexure 9 by which the said opposite party were given higher place over the petitioner though earlier their names were below the name of the petitioner. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not party to the claim petitions which were filed separately by opposite parties No. 5 and 6 and in which the Public Services Tribunal passed orders in favour of the claimants before it and as a result of which the department revised the final seniority list and those two persons were placed above the petitioners and the petitioners seniority was lowered down in the seniority list to his prejudice without giving him an opportunity of hearing by the Public Services Tribunal before which it appears that all facts were not brought to its notice. The opposite parties were earlier working on ad has basis. Subsequently they were retrenched in the year 1979. They were again appointed in the Irrigation Department as A. D. Q. (M. 1.). Para 3 of the appointment letter, dated March 26, 1966 dealing with conditions of services reads as under : "3. You shall also get benefit of services, rendered by you in the Irrigation Department in respect of fixation of pay and seniority etc. in your new appointment. The application shall be subject to the following conditions i (i).............. (ii) Services are purely temporary, and liable for termination on one months notice or pay in view thereof on either side." The appointment of the opposite parties Nos. in your new appointment. The application shall be subject to the following conditions i (i).............. (ii) Services are purely temporary, and liable for termination on one months notice or pay in view thereof on either side." The appointment of the opposite parties Nos. 5 and 6 was made by the Superintending Engineer and according to the petitioner in view of G. O., dated September 15, 1955 contained in Annexure 10 to the writ petition, the Superintending Engineer had no authority to determine the conditions of service as in the said G. O., it was provided that conditions of service will be decided by the Agriculture Production Commissioner. On March 2, 1967, a Government order was issued in which detailed procedure for absorption of surplus staff was given and it was provided therein that the temporary employees will be deemed to have severed all connections with his previous post and period of any break will not count towards qualifying service. Regarding seniority it was clearly provided that inter se seniority of such an employee in the new department or in respect of new post will be fixed in accordance with the principles which will be communicated separately by the Appointment Department. On March 2, 1967, the State Government issued another order in which, it was provided that the retrenched employees when re-employed in a different department, will not be given advantage of their previous services for the purposes of seniority and pension. As a result of above order, the Superintending Engineer on November 9, 1967 revised his earlier orders and ordered that retrenched overseers of Irrigation Department who were absorbed in the department as Assistant Development Officer (M.I.) should not be given joining time as is usually allowed to those persons who join their new place of costing on transfer. It was also mentioned in the order that the only benefit which was allowed to these retrenched overseer was that they would get the same pay which they were drawing in the Irrigation Department, prior to their retrenchment and the period of services rendered would count towards the increment only and the intervening period will be treated as break in service. It appears that no objection to the same was raised. It appears that no objection to the same was raised. On May 23, 1970 the Superintending Engineer issued a tentative seniority list of Assistant Development Officers and objections to the same were invited and the seniority list was finalised on July 23, 1974 The name of the petitioner was at Serial No. 64 and that of opposite parties No. 5 and 6 were at 197 and 224 respectively and other opposite parties were also at a lower position. One was at 177 and others at Serial Nos. 183, 213, 199, 189, 203 and 221 respectively. It is on the basis of this seniority list, it appears, that promotion was given to the petitioner on the post of Senior Mechanical Inspector and no objection to the same was raised. It seems that it was only in the year 1976 the opposite party No. 6 flied above-mentioned claim petition and prayed for fixation of his seniority which was done in the manner indicated above. The Tribunal directed the opposite parties to refix the seniority and to pay him salary in accordance with Para 3 of the appointment letter. In the year 1978 opposite party No. 5 also filed claim petition in which similar declaration was given. Thereafter the Chief Engineer passed the order revising the seniority list which led the petitioner to approach this court. 3. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that he was not a party to the claim petition and the Chief Engineer had no jurisdiction to disturb the confirmed seniority list which was not brought to the notice of Public Services Tribunal as is also evident from the said judgment. In the subsequent claim petition reference to this seniority list was made and the Tribunal was of the view that the Government Order could not have been given retrospective effect. Before the Public Services Tribunal the petitioner was a necessary party as his seniority was being disturbed. In the subsequent claim petition reference to this seniority list was made and the Tribunal was of the view that the Government Order could not have been given retrospective effect. Before the Public Services Tribunal the petitioner was a necessary party as his seniority was being disturbed. If the seniority list was before the Public Services Tribunal which was a confirmed list, the Public Services Tribunal should have given an of hearing to the petitioner while according to the opposite parties in the matter of seniority the petitioner was not a necessary party and it was a matter between the claimants and the State Government and as such the order passed by the Public Services Tribunal cannot be challenged or quashed on the ground that said order was passed without hearing a necessary party who was adversely affected by the order passed by the Public Services Tribunal without getting opportunity of hearing and the said Order formed basis of subsequent executive order passed by the Chief Engineer for disturbing the final seniority list. 4. On behalf of opposite parties reference was made to the case of A. Janardhana v. Union of India, 1983(2) SLR 113 in which it was held that the seniority list had been draw up on illegal and invalid grounds and the relief claimed against the Union of India is for restraining it from upsetting or quashing the already drawn up valid list and for quashing the impugned seniority list and as such the employees likely to be affected were not necessary party. In the said case the petitioner did not claim seniority over and particular individual in the background of any particular fact controverted by that person against whom the claim is made. The court held that the relief is claimed against the Union Government and not against any particular individual. In this back-ground we consider it unnecessary to have all direct recruits to be impeded as respondents. The court further observed : "The proceedings are analogous to those in which the constitutionality of a statutory regulating to seniority of Government servants is assailed. In such proceedings, the necessary parties to be impleaded are those against whom the relief is sought, and in whose absence no effective decision can be rendered by the Court. The court further observed : "The proceedings are analogous to those in which the constitutionality of a statutory regulating to seniority of Government servants is assailed. In such proceedings, the necessary parties to be impleaded are those against whom the relief is sought, and in whose absence no effective decision can be rendered by the Court. Approaching the matter from this angle, it may be noticed that relief is sought only against the Union of India and the concerned Ministry and not against any individual nor any seniority is claimed by anyone individual against another particular individual and therefore, even if technically the direct recruits were not before the Court, the petition is not likely to fail on that ground." The facts of this case are altogether different. In this case confirmed seniority list was disturbed and the petitioner who was senior obviously became junior without getting opportunity of hearing. He even could not get opportunity to point out that paragraph 3 of the appointment letter could not have been inserted by the Superintending Engineer as he had no power to decide the terms and conditions of service and said conditions of service also came to an end in view or the order of 1970 against which no voice was raised and where after final seniority list was prepare. This position still remains even if it may be said that subsequent Government Orders of 1977 and 1979 were not with retrospective effect. Reference was also made to the case of K.B. Sharma v. Transport Commissioner and others, 1968 SLR 830 , wherein it was held that in a petition claiming seniority over other persons who are directly not impleaded then their non-implement would be void. Reference was also made to the case of K. Madhavan v. Union of India, 1987 SC 2291 in which case the court held that the transfer of Government servant cannot wipe out his length of service in the post from which he has been transferred. The said case has got no applicability to the facts of this case as this was not a case of transfer but it was a case of appointment after retrenchment under a Government Order. The said case has got no applicability to the facts of this case as this was not a case of transfer but it was a case of appointment after retrenchment under a Government Order. Reference was made to Abdul Rashid v. State of J&K, 1973(2) SLR 184, wherein it was held re-determination of seniority without giving an opportunity of hearing which may affect in loss of pay, pension, status or position and affects, the civil rights of officer cone red and amounts to punishment would be against the principles of natural justice. Reference was also made to the case of Padam Singh Jhina v. Union of India, 1974(1) SLR 594 , which was a petition against fixation of seniority it, was held : "It is impossible to pass an order, assuming that the appellant is abb to convince us that a breach of the rules was committed, altering the list of seniority, unless those who are likely to be affected thereby are before the Court and have an opportunity of replying to the case set up by the appellant " This case applies to the facts of the instant case. Reference was also made to Supreme Court Decision in Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P., AIR 1985 SC 167 , in which case the court observed : "A High Court ought not to hear and dispose of a writ petition under Article 226 without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least some of them beige before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large to join them as respondents individually, and, if the petitioners refuse to so join them, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition for non-joinder of necessary parties." In the instance case the Public Services Tribunal decided the claim petition without giving opportunity of hearing to the alerted persons whose seniority was disturbed and one who was little lower in the seniority list was placed above a person who was above him in the list already confirmed by the Department. This was done without hearing him on the question as to why confirmed seniority list could not be disturbed and allowing him to place certain relevant documents on record in this behalf. This was done without hearing him on the question as to why confirmed seniority list could not be disturbed and allowing him to place certain relevant documents on record in this behalf. In such a case opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioner by the Public Services Tribunal as it was not a case of entering into Government policy or note but was a case in which settled state of affairs were going to be unsettled. Consequently the order passed by the Public Services Tribunal cannot be sustained. 5. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The judgment and orders, dated December 14, 1977 (Annexure-5) and September 28, 1978 (Annexure-6) and the orders of the Chief Engineer, dated April 20, 1979 (Annexure-7), July 27, 1979 (Annexure-8) and August 29, 1979 (Annexure-9) are quashed. The concerned opposite party are directed to prepare seniority list again taking into consideration the legal position and the observations made in this judgment which may or may not result in maintaining the earlier confirmed seniority list. There will be no order as to costs.