S. Haque J.- It is a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners No. 1 to 91 excluding petitioner No. S have assailed the orders of disembodiment of their services for two (2) days vide orders (1) No. HG. Bn. 5/85-86/Pf, dated 18. 11. 87, (2) No. HG. Bn. 5/85-86/Pt,dtd. 18. 11. 87, (3) No. HG. Bn. 5/85-86/Pt. dated 18. 11.87, (4) No. HG. Bn. 5/85-86/Pt, dated 18.11. 1987 and (5) HG. Bn. 5/85-86/Pt, dated 18. U. 1987 (Annexures 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 respectively to the writ petition) ; and the petitioner No. 8 has assailed the order of disembodiment of his service with effect from 4.12.1987 vide order No. HG. Bn 5/85 86/Pt/247, dated 4.12.87 (Annexure-15 of the writ petition) issued by the Commandant, Assam Home Guards Battalion (B. W) Dispur, Gauhati. 2. With a view to strengthen the members of the Border Guards in the Eastern States of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and West Bengal, the Government of India had decided to raise Border Wing Home Guards Battalion vide their letter No. 1/17/75/DGCD (HG), dated 15. 10. 1976 issued by the Director of Home Guards, New Delhi to the Chief Secretary of the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and West Bengal (Annexure-9 to the writ petition). The Scheme under Annexure-9 indicated that the members of this Wing are not temporary rather to be permanent employees and are completely different from Rural Home Guards. It states that no Rural Home Guards are allowed to raise or retain within the areas covered by the Belt and that the physical standards of the members of the Border Wing Home Guards should conform to the standards laid down for the armed police Battalion in the State. Under the Scheme of those order, the State Government decided to open a Home Guards Battalion (Border Wing) in Assam with a view to guard the border of Assam. 3. The petitioners were trained Home Guards. In October, 1977 the petitioners were offered to join in Assam Home Guards Battalion and they consented to join. After completion of physical and medical tests for final selection, appointment letters were issued to the petitioners No, 2 to 89 by the Commandant. Home Guards Battalion (Border Wing), Beltola in the month of October, 1977 appointing them as Guardsmen in the Assam Home Guards Bn. Border Wing) with effect from 4. 10. After completion of physical and medical tests for final selection, appointment letters were issued to the petitioners No, 2 to 89 by the Commandant. Home Guards Battalion (Border Wing), Beltola in the month of October, 1977 appointing them as Guardsmen in the Assam Home Guards Bn. Border Wing) with effect from 4. 10. 1977 in the scale of pay of Rs. 205-325/- per month plus other allowances as admissible under Rules. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed in the month of July, 1977 in that post with effect from 26.6.1977 in the same scale and allowances. They had undergone full training for three months in handling and using Rifles, Sten Guns, LMG, Hand Granade etc, like that of B. S. F. Personnel, They have been posted in Assam-Bangladesh Border with Battalion Head Quarter at Bel toll, Gauhati while the Company Commander's Head Quarter at Dhubri and Mankachar. Since their joining in service in July and October, 1977 they have been continuously discharging duties for the last 10 years along with B. S. F. personnel's jointly in the Border. They were drawing ration money at fixed rate of Rs. 102.50 P. in 1987, while uniform, utensils, bed, warm clothes and other clothes are given free of cost by the State Government. They were given medical charge at Rs. 75/- p. m. initially which was raised to Rs 100/-p. m. since 1987. Their initial basic pay of Rs. 205/- p.m. has been raised to Rs. 410/- from i98i while the basic pay of Havildar has been raised to Rs, 470/- p. m. besides other allowances, Nayak and Lance Nayak draw similar pay per month like Home Guards Battalion members. They are required to deposit Rs. 50/- every month compulsorily in Saving Postal Accounts under the direction of respondent No. 3, Com­mandant, Assam Home Guards Battalion (Border Wing). 4. After completion of 10 years of service uninterruptedly, the respondent No. 3 has disembodied the services of the petitioners No. 1 to 91 excluding petitioner No. 8 for 2. (two) days vide impugned, order at Annexures No. 10, 11, !2> 13 and 14; whereas the petitioner No. 8 has been disembodied with effect from 4 12. 1987 until further orders vide order at Annexure-15. (two) days vide impugned, order at Annexures No. 10, 11, !2> 13 and 14; whereas the petitioner No. 8 has been disembodied with effect from 4 12. 1987 until further orders vide order at Annexure-15. Except the petitioner No. 8, all the petitioners have joined in their original respective posts after the said two days break and they were not given salary for those two days. 5. During the services for the period more than 10 years, the petitioners No. 1 to 11 have been promoted to the posts of Havildar, Nayak and Lance Nayak by the authorities considering satisfaction and suitability of their services. 6. The petitioners state that the actions of the respondent No. 3 in disembodying the services were malafide, illegal, arbitrary and against justice and fair play and were violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and hence liable to be quashed. They also state that disembodiment and break in service for two days, after uninterrupted and continuous service for more than 10 years, without serving notice and hearing was in violation of natural justice. 7. The respondents No. I, 2, 3 and 5 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that disembodiment of the Force was as per existing situation, and the .authority was not bound to give notice and hearing to the personnel of the Battalion ; and that there was no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned actions; and that as per terms of the Scheme under Circular dated is. 10. 1976 (Anriexure-9) the petitioners cannot acquire status of permanent or quasi-permanent employees. 8. Learned counsel Mr. Saukat Ali on behalf of the petitioners submits that although initially their appointments were temporary as Guardsmen in the Assam Home Guards Bn. (Border Wing) in the year 1977, the continuity of their services uninterruptedly for more than 10 years with due increments in their pay scales and other allowances, benefits etc. as per rule and the nature of their job and utilisation as per the Scheme under Annexure-9 dated !5th October, 1976 made their services permanent and the term of terminability without notice mentioned in the appointment letters had no longer existed in force ; and that disembodiment of their services for two days without notice was illegal, arbitrary and was in violation of natural justice, Whereas, learned Govt. Advocate Mr. Advocate Mr. B. Kalita submits that nature and the terms of the appointment letters cannot be extinguished for continuity in service for more than 10 years and that the authority had the right of disembodiment in the services as situation demanded and that the break for two days was done as per existing situation and so question of notice or hearing to the petitioners was not necessary and there was no violation of natural justice. 9. We have carefully perused the Scheme of creation of Border Wing Home Guard for Eastern States by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs und.r Memo No. 1/17/75-DGCD (HG), New Delhi, dated 15th October, 1976 directing the Governments of the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and West Bengal to raise Border Wings Home Guard Battalion in these States. It indicated the nature of the Force of the Wing and their services under the Scheme was not of temporary character rather permanent and com­pletely different from Rural Home Guards; and that the physical standards of the members of the Border Wing Home Guards should conform to the standards laid down for the Armed Police Battalion in the State. The petitioners were appointed by the State Government through respondent No. 3, the Commandant, Assam Guards Battalion I.BVV), Dispur, Gauhaii in pursuance of the Scheme (Annexure-9) adopted by the State Government. The initial appointments were shown as temporary and terminable without notice in the year 1977. But the services of the petitioners under such appointments continued without interruption for more than 10 years ; they were given increments in their pay scales with allowances and other benefits as admissible under the rules and some of them got lift to higher rank. In view of the Scheme of the service and continuity in the services for more than 10 years, without interruption, the initial nature and terms of appointment temporary and terminable without notice had automatically lost its force and character of their permanency in the services had grown with rights in the services. The respondents tailed to assign any reason or ground for break in service for two days in respect of petitioners No. 1 to 7 and 9 to 91 and disembodiment of petitioner No. 8 with effect From 4. 12. 1987 until further orders. The respondents tailed to assign any reason or ground for break in service for two days in respect of petitioners No. 1 to 7 and 9 to 91 and disembodiment of petitioner No. 8 with effect From 4. 12. 1987 until further orders. Therefore, disembodiment for two days under the impugned order (Annexure 10 to 14) in respect of petitioners No. 1 to 7 and 9 to 91 and disembodiment of petitioner No. 8 under impugned order (Annexure-15) with effect from 4. 12. 87 until further orders without notice and hearing were illegal, arbitrary and violative of natural justice. All the six (6) impugned orders under Annexure Nos. 10 to 15 are liable to be quashed. 10. We accordingly quash the impugned orders contained in (1) HG. Bn. 5/85-86/Pt. dated 18.11.1987, (2) HG. Bn.- 5/85-86/Pt, dated 18.11.87. (3) HG. Bn. 5/85«86/Pt. dated 18.11.1987, (4) HG. Bn. 5/85-86/Pt, dated 18.11.1987, (5) HG. Bn. 5/85-86/Pt. dated 18.11,1987 and (6) No. HG. Bn. 5/85-86/Pt/247, dated 4.12,1987 (Annexures 10 to 15 respectively) issued by the Commandant, Assam Home Guards Battalion (BW), Dispur, Gauhati and declare that the services of the petitioners No. 1 to 7 and 9 to 91 to be in continuity entitling them to the salary/allowances etc. for those two days for the month of November, 1987 and direct the respondent No. 3 to release their salary for those two days : and also direct the respondent No. 3 to reinstate the petitioner No. 8 in service with all arrear salary, allowances etc. as admissible with effect from 4th day of December, 1987. 11. This writ petition is allowed and rule is made absolute. We make no order as to costs. Smti. M. Sharma, J.- I agree.