M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD petitioners' learned Advocate and the respondents learned Advocate. This case is very seriously contested by the respondents, the Mysore Electrical Industries Limited; (hereinafter referred to as the 'm. E. I. L. ' ). The controversy is within a narrow ambit insofar as the seven petitioners who are officers of the company claim that they were promoted to higher posts of Deputy Manager with effect from 18-10-1993 and that this position was confirmed by the company. They claim the higher emoluments, they represented several times and thereafter moved this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay them the higher emoluments with effect from that date with other consequential benefits. The respondents have seriously disputed the grant of any relief and their contention is that after the action of 18-10-1993, that certain improprieties and irregularities in relation to the decision to promote and the manner in which this was done surfaced and that the management was therefore required to set up a Review Committee to examine the matter. They contend that the promotions were kept in abeyance and that the entire matter after re-examination resulted in certain changes and that by orders dated 30-6-1995 copies of which have been filed, the seven petitioners have been promoted with effect from this date and that this is "in modification of the earlier order". ( 2 ) THE petitioners' learned Advocate submits that the material produced before the Court unequivocally indicates that the petitioners were promoted to the higher post and that this position was confirmed. He states that at no point of time have those orders been set aside and that because the petitioners are now agitating the matter before the Court, as a cover up for the non-payment of the higher emoluments during this period, fresh orders have been passed and it is sought to substitute the orders dated 18-10-1993 by the present ones. He objects to this being permitted because he submits that as far as the seven petitioners are concerned, the present order indicates that they are in fact eligible for the promotion and there is no ambiguity with regard to the same. Secondly, he submits that at no time had the earlier order been set aside and that consequently, it is not permissible to thereafter change or tamper with them long after the original orders have taken effect. Secondly, he submits that at no time had the earlier order been set aside and that consequently, it is not permissible to thereafter change or tamper with them long after the original orders have taken effect. Lastly, his submission is that the petitioners have in fact discharged the duties in the higher posts and that consequently, they cannot be denied their emoluments. ( 3 ) THE respondents' learned Advocate has advanced an interesting submission. First of all, he submits that the management does have the inherent right to modify or rectify a promotion order if it is disclosed that such reconsideration is necessary. He states that when such a procedure is adopted, that the earlier order necessarily goes into cold storage. He states that in the present case since the management did find the seven petitioners eligible, that fresh orders have been passed. Once the orders dated 30-6-1995 intend that they are in modification of the earlier orders, ipso facto the earlier orders are replaced by these. Under the circumstances, he submits that it is impermissible for the petitioners to claim any benefits under the old orders. ( 4 ) THEREAFTER, the respondents' learned Advocate has submitted that the petitioners have in fact not discharged their duties in the higher posts and that it would be unfair and improper for this Court to direct the payment of the higher emoluments. Under these circumstances and that therefore no relief can be granted in this petition. Lastly, it is his contention that if at all it is the petitioners' case that they are entitled to anything, that they will have to factually justify it, for which they can file a representation to the management and that the same will be considered within a reasonable time. ( 5 ) THE material placed before the Court indicates that the promotion orders on which the petitioners' learned Advocate relies were not officiating orders. Neither were they stop-gap arrangements but that they were clean clear-cut promotions. Under these circumstances, I see no ambiguity whatsoever in the orders in questions or for that matter in upholding the contention of the petitioners that rights did accrue in their favour on and from the dates on which those orders were passed. Neither were they stop-gap arrangements but that they were clean clear-cut promotions. Under these circumstances, I see no ambiguity whatsoever in the orders in questions or for that matter in upholding the contention of the petitioners that rights did accrue in their favour on and from the dates on which those orders were passed. I do uphold the contention raised by the respondents' learned advocate that the management did have the inherent right to withdraw those orders or to reject them in exceptional circumstances namely, if it was disclosed that the passing of these orders was unjustified or that the orders themselves were otherwise vitiated. No such material has been placed before the court on the basis of which the plea on the part of the management could be upheld. I need to sound a word of caution here insofar as the law does entitle the petitioners to the enforcement of the rights that flow to them once the promotion orders are communicated and in these circumstances if those rights are to be abridged or if these rights are required to be curtailed, it will have to be done by a specific order for valid reasons and within the shortest time. In the absence of this procedure, after a long lapse of time it is wholly and totally impermissible to thereafter pass an order that the promotion orders dated 30-6-1995 are in modification or substitution of the earlier ones. The earlier orders are still valid and continue and therefore, there is no question of modifying them unless and until they have been validly set aside. Under these circumstances, the objections raised on behalf of the respondents will have to be rejected. I need to add here that even as regards the question whether the petitioners have discharged their duties in the higher post is concerned, that the issue is not free from doubt insofar as the petitioners contend that they have done so whereas the respondents maintain that they have not done so. As far as the entitlements to the petitioners are concerned, to my mind, it makes absolutely no difference. Once the petitioners have been served with the promotion orders in law, their designations have changed and therefore the entitlement commences. It matters little as to whether their work functions were altered or not. As far as the entitlements to the petitioners are concerned, to my mind, it makes absolutely no difference. Once the petitioners have been served with the promotion orders in law, their designations have changed and therefore the entitlement commences. It matters little as to whether their work functions were altered or not. It is in this background that the last objection on behalf of the respondents will have to be overruled. ( 6 ) THE set of petitions accordingly succeed. The respondents are directed to give effect to the orders dated 18-10-1993 vis-a-vis the petitioners. The necessary corrective steps shall be completed within an outer limit of four months from today. Petitions to stand disposed of. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .