JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4514/89 (Pramod Chand Bhandari v. State), dated October 18, 1993 with the prayer that the Respondent No. 2 may be directed to take the petitioner on duty on the establishment of Jodhpur Sahkari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Ltd., Jodhpur. The facts of the case as narrated in S.B. Civil writ petition No. 4514/89 are that the petitioner who had been appointed as LDC with respondent Jodhpur Sahkari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar (for short as "Bhandar") in the year 1975 and was the senior most employee amongst the ministerial staff, being at S.No. 1 in the seniority list of the staff, circulated in the year 1986 as per Annex. 1 attached with writ petition. According to the petitioner, without there being any reason whatsoever and exercising the powers conferred under Section 78(1) of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, the Registrar had passed an order for liquidation of Bhandar on May 18, 1987 vide Ex. P/2 to the writ petition and in consequence of the liquidation order passed by the Registrar, services of the employees were terminated on June 12, 1987 vide Ex P/3 to the writ petition without complying with any provisions of the law. The order for terminating the services of employees was passed because of the reason that liquidation had been ordered. The petitioner had pleaded in the writ petition challenging the termination of services, being in violation of provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act as no compensation whatsoever was either paid or offered for rendering the services for about 12 years. His services could not be terminated by a simple order and, therefore, the termination order, according to the petitioner, was void abinitio. But before legality of the order violating any provision of the Act, could be determined the liquidation order of Bhandar itself, was withdrawn vide Ex. P/14. The establishment of the Bhandar was revived and the order Ex. P/3 of liquidation was withdrawn by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur. But before legality of the order violating any provision of the Act, could be determined the liquidation order of Bhandar itself, was withdrawn vide Ex. P/14. The establishment of the Bhandar was revived and the order Ex. P/3 of liquidation was withdrawn by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur. According to the petitioner/appellant, that very basis of termination of services i.e. the liquidation of the society itself was not in existence and the society having been revived and the staff having been appointed on revival, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have taken the petitioner on job immediately on revival of the society. The petitioner was not offered any job as required under Section 25H of the I. D. Act read with (sic.) relevant rule. Section 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act provides that an employee who has been retrenched, shall have a preference, in case any future vacancy arises in the establishment, and the employer shall, in such manner, as be prescribed, give an opportunity to such an employee, who offers himself for re-employment. Such employee shall be given preference over all other employees. The petitioner had averred, which fact is not denied, that Bhandar had started functioning, but the management did not offer the employment to its old employees; with the result that many employees i.e, Sawal Singh, Smt. Shanti Devi, Smt. Pushpa Devi and Smt. Jama and Ors. had to file Court cases and those persons were given employment under the orders of the Court. 2. The petitioner had prayed for a writ of mandamus on various grounds (i) that the termination is in violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act (ii) that the liquidation order having been withdrawn and the Bhandar having been revived, the petitioner had a preferential right under Section 25H of the I.D. Act (iii) that many juniors to the petitioner/ appellant were retained and were given appointment/employment after the revival of the Bhandar (iv) that the petitioner/appellant has specifically mentioned the name of one Chhagan Lal, who has been given employment but was junior to the petitioner. 3. 3. On the non controverted facts as mentioned above the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated October 18, 1993 had passed the order to the fact that since the order of liquidation has already been withdrawn and the Bhandar has already started working, therefore, if any vacancy exists and the respondents want to appoint some other person on the post of salesman, the case of the petitioner be considered sympathatically on preferential basis. The operative part of the order is as under : "In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that since the order of liquidation has already been withdrawn and the Bhandar has already started working, therefore, if any vacancy exists and the respondent wants to appoint some other persons on the post of Salesman and the petitioner offers himself for re-employment then his case may be considered sympathetically on preferential basis." 4. Being aggrieved by the above direction, the writ petitioner has filed the present appeal. It has been argued that in view of the liquidation order having been set aside by the Department itself and the Bhandar having been revived, the status quo ante was to be maintained. If Bhandar has started working/functioning, it was the duty of the Bhandar to call immediately the employees working before the liquidation and in any case, the petitioner could not have been ignored for the reason that he was the senior-most employee. He has stated that the juniors have been taken back in job. His repeated requests have not been replied to. 5. He has stated that the juniors have been taken back in job. His repeated requests have not been replied to. 5. We may not be detained in going into the intricacies of the legality or illegality of the order of termination for the reason that the order of liquidation having been set aside by the department itself, on account of which reason, the writ petitioner was removed from service, and the Bhandar having been revived and also for the reason that the respondent employed many persons on the revival, the appeal is to be allowed by modifying the order of learned Single Judge, with the direction that not only, in view of the statutory provisions of the I.D. Act and the rules as prescribed, it was the duty of the employer to have offered, the job by sending a registered letter to the employee to join the post on starting the Bhandar, which having not been done, the petitioner is straightway entitled to be put in job from the date when Bhandar was revived. It has also been stated by the petitioner that the persons junior to him have either been retained or offered the appointment immediately after revival and discriminatory treatment has been meted out to him. The petitioner has also placed an affidavit dated May 6, 1995, which has not been controverted by the respondents. The affidavit after narrating the facts alleges that the respondents had employed new hands. Five old persons were taken on job only when they had approached the Hon'ble Court by filing the writ petition. It was stated in para No. 5 of the affidavit that Ramesh Chand, Om Prakash Vyas and Praveen Sablok were taken back in Bhandar on its revival. It was also stated that Praveen Sablok is being asked to do the duties of storekeeper with extra emoluments of Rs. 3000/ - when the same duties can be done by the clerk including the petitioner at the monthly emoluments of Rs. 2500/-. It has also been stated that Bhandar is running in profits. It was also stated in the affidavit that prior (sic.) to the liquidation order, only 33 persons were working in the Bhandar, but now after revival, as many as 44 persons are employed. This averment of petitioner in the affidavit has not been controverted. 2500/-. It has also been stated that Bhandar is running in profits. It was also stated in the affidavit that prior (sic.) to the liquidation order, only 33 persons were working in the Bhandar, but now after revival, as many as 44 persons are employed. This averment of petitioner in the affidavit has not been controverted. The only stand taken by the Respondent No. 2 in one para reply is that no sanction for the post of clerk was received and, therefore, no post of clerk was advertised. The contention of the respondents cannot be accepted. 6. Because of the reason that Bhandar was revived and the order of liquidation was withdrawn and as many as 44 persons were employed after revival as per the affidavit of the petitioner which has not been controverted at all and also for the reason that many juniors were either retained or got the jobs after revival by ignoring the petitioner, the proper direction which could be given in the present case and also as per law should be that the petitioner is to be taken back in service w.e.f. date of revival of the Bhandar with continuity of service as if he had been serving the Bhandar from the date, but in the peculiar circumstances of the case, he shall be paid 50% of the back wages, on the ground that he must have earned something to sustain himself during this long period. 7. With the above directions, this appeal is accepted and the writ petition is allowed and order of learned Single Judge is modified to the extent that writ petitioner/appellant shall be entitled to reinstatement from the date the liquidation order was set aside and the Bhandar was revived with consequential benefits as mentioned above. The appellant would be taken back on duty within 15 days of receipt of the certified copy of this order and back wages shall be paid within two months thereafter positively.Appeal allowed. *******