Honble KAPUR, J. –The learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the appellants writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. It has been observed that the dispute relates to contractual liability hence, it would not be proper to exercise the discretion under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. (2). In this appeal, the facts in brief are that the appellant was appointed as Driver in the Municipal Board, Dholpur on 10th March, 1992 on daily wages. Initially, the appointment was for a period of three months which was extended from time to time. There-after, on his application for grant of regular pay-scale an order (Annexure 7) dated 17.12.1992 was passed by which the appellant was allowed pay-scale of Rs. 950-1680. This was done on the basis of resolution passed by the Administrative Committee. Four other employees working on daily wages were also given regular pay-scale. Subsequently, on the basis of a letter of Deputy Director, Local Self Government, dated 15th January, 1993, the Chairman, Municipal Board, Dholpur, passed an order dated 6th March, 1993 withdrawing the regular pay-scale allowed to him and he was allowed fixed pay of Rs. 550/- per month. (3). It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the regular pay-scale allowed to him could not be withdrawn without given in an opportunity of hearing. He has placed reliance on the case of Divisional Supdt. Eastern Railway Dinapur and Ors. vs. Shri L.N. Keshari and Ors. & The Union of India vs. Vidhya Sagar Mishra (1) and another decision given in the case of Nandlal vs. The State of Rajasthan (2), in which it was held that even if the order of appointment was illegal or void in law still before the termination of service, an opportunity of hearing should be given to the employee on the principles of natural justice. (4). In this case, it is not necessary for us to decide as to what was the nature of employment and whether the appellant was duly selected or not and what was the pay-scale given to him. The question is simply this as to whether the pay-scale allowed to him could have been withdrawn without giving an opportunity of hearing to him. The question is simply this as to whether the pay-scale allowed to him could have been withdrawn without giving an opportunity of hearing to him. While withdrawing the regular pay-scale, the Municipal Board, has simply referred to the directions of the Deputy Director and not even disclosed as to what was the mistake on account of which the pay-scale was withdrawn. The dispute cannot be said to be a dispute of contractual nature so as to say that the alternative remedy of a civil suit would be an efficacious remedy. The dispute is based on the violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the extra ordinary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can be revoked. Order (Annexure 8) dated 6.3.1993, has been passed without awarding an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the order deserves to be set aside. In case, the respondents want to withdraw the pay-scale granted to the appellant, they should act in accordance with law. (5). In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The order (Annexure 8) dated 6th March, 1993 is set-aside.