Honble VERMA, J.–The petitioner was initially appointed on 26.2. 72 as a Work Agent and vide order dated 14.8.76, he was declared as semi- permanent Road Mistry w.e.f. 1.12.1974 treating him to be working on the post regularly from 1.12.1972 and he was fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 100-180 vide copy of order dated 14.8.76 (Annex. 1). In the order Annex.1 it has been mentioned that the petitioner is declared as semi-permanent from 1.12.74 and his pay is fixed as Rs. 100/- per month in the scale of Rs. 100-180. Initially in Annex. 1 at the place wherever 100 has been written, word 70 was written, but after scoring the same word 100 has been mentioned and each cutting is initialled by the Officer who had passed the order. He was also paid arrears of pay from 1.4.76 in the scale of Rs. 100-180. It is stated by the petitioner that he was given grade of Rs. 100-180 because of the reason that he was Hr. Secondary passed and also discharging the duties of Civil Mistry which is a post higher than the Road Mistry. He was allowed due yearly increments, but all of sudden, without issuing any show cause notice vide order dated 11.9.81 (Annex. 2) the A.En, has refixed the pay reducing the pay from 100-180 to 70-110 w.e.f 1.4.76 in the scale of Road Mistry and further order was made for recovery of amount with the monthly instalment of Rs. 90/- per month. Being aggrieved with the order Annex. 2 the petitioner approached the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, who vide its order dt. 13.10.1981 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner before Tribunal was identical as in the present writ petition i.e. that he had never worked as Road Mistry, but he was working as Civil Mistry through-out and the grade of Civil Mistry was 100 -180, therefore, he was rightly fixed in the scale vide order Annex.1 The Tribunal had non-suited the petitioner on an unimaginative ground without looking to the original or photo stat copy of Annex. 1 by saying that the word``Road had been cut or crossed by the petitioner and it has been substituted by words ``Civil by the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner has tampered with the copy of order just to mislead the Tribunal. 1 by saying that the word``Road had been cut or crossed by the petitioner and it has been substituted by words ``Civil by the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner has tampered with the copy of order just to mislead the Tribunal. On the photo- stat copy produced by the petitioner in the Court attached with the writ petition, there is no such cutting. The word Road has not been cut at all rather it is clearly mentioned as `` Road Mistry. However, it is admitted that the grade of Civil Mistry is 100-180. There is definitely cutting so far as mentioning of grades are concerned. Rs. 70/- has been cut and 100 has been written. Similarly 110 has been cut and 180 has been written , wherever it occures in Annex. 1. But all these cutting are again initialled b y same person. If that was so, the Tribunal could not have jumped to the conclusion that these cuttings have been made by the petitioner before the Tribunal. As all the cuttings are initialled, a proper opportunity ought to have been given in case the Tribunal so desired to find out the author of Annex. 1 and author of person who has put the initial on cutting. No such thing has been done by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has straight way jumped to the conclusion that this cuttings must have been done by the petitioner. The finding of the Tribunal in this regard is only based on conjectures and surmises and cannot be upheld.The Tribunal has not gone in to the other aspect of the matter i.e. whether any opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the order for recovery or changing the grade of petitioner by reducing the same vide Annex.2. (2) In similar circumstances, in the case relating to one Om Prakash, who was junior to the petitioner and was Similary declared semi- permanent `Road Inspector much later than the petitioner and was similarly placed in the grade of 100-180 vide Annex. 6. which document also contained cutting similar to that of petitioner and whose pay was also reduced in the similar manner as to that of the petitioner. The order of recovery was passed vide Annex. 7. Photo stat copy of appointment order of Om Prakash as semi-permanent bearing the cutting is attached as Annex. 6. which document also contained cutting similar to that of petitioner and whose pay was also reduced in the similar manner as to that of the petitioner. The order of recovery was passed vide Annex. 7. Photo stat copy of appointment order of Om Prakash as semi-permanent bearing the cutting is attached as Annex. 6 with the writ petition (those documents were not part of the record of Tribunal and has been placed for the first time). (3) The counsel for the petitioner states that he had come to know about the case of Omprakash after dismissal of the case of petitioner by the Tribunal and, therefore, this document could not be brought on record before the Tribunal. However it is stated by him that order in regard to said Omprakash was withdrawn and he was allowed to continue in the grade of 100-180 and was also given the sub- sequent promotions from this grade of Civil Mistry. It is admitted fact that petitioner had been receiving this grade right from 1976 to 1981 and was deprived of the grade in the year 1981 to 1988, but lateron was fixed in the grade of Civil Mistry in the year 1988, when he was promoted as Civil Mistry. (4) It is well settled law that no order effecting the Civil rights of a person can be passed without giving an opportunity to the official. The principles of natural justice are the cordinal principles which are to be complied with by the State Authorities even to modify an order howsoever erroneous or illegal, that order might be, if that order had bestowed any benefit on the official. In the present case, the petitioner had been issued letter Annex.1 showing the grade to be 100-180 by scoring the scale of 70-110 and this scoring was duly initialled by the competent authority, who had passed the order and had some opportunity been given to the petitioner to show cause, the petitioner would have been able to convince the au- thorities of his entitlement in such grade in the year 1976 on the grounds which might be available to him relying on his qualifications and working on the seat of Civil Mistry. He could have explained properly if some opportunity had been given to him to prove that the grade given to him was not given by way of any mistake but was given to him because of the reason that he deserved it. This finds support from the case of another person i.e. respondent no.3, who though much junior, had been given equal benefits of grade as was given to the petitioner. In both the cases, the respondents had withdrawn the scale and refixed them in the reduced scale of 70-110, but for the reasons not known, respondent no.3 was again restored the grade. If a junior person in the same cadre has been given benefit by which he steals march on the senior, the senior is automatically entitled to it in the interest of justice. I am allowing the petitioner to argue on the pleadings of awarding, withdrawing and again restoring the scale to respondent no.3 in similar circumstances as he had been made party and proper pleadings have been filed in the court and respondents have opportunity to rebut the same. (5) For the reasons that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before withdrawing the grade of 100-180 by reducing to 70- 110, the order Annex.2 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and same is quashed. For the reason that similarly situated junior person i.e. respondent no.3 with identical orders of being made semi-permanent on the same post as that of the petitioner, and for the reason that in the case of respondent no.3 also, an order Annex. 6 was passed, but lateron withdrawn and respondent no.3 was granted the initial scale and for the reason that respondent no.3 is admittedly junior to the petitioner, the petitioner shall also be entitled to the same grade and scale as has been given to his junior. It is settled law that juniror persons in the similar situation cannot be allowed to steal-march over their seniors so far as scales are concerned. If it is allowed to remain as it is, result would be that similarly situated junior shall not only draw more pay but may also get rapid promotion to that of his senior. In the present situation and in view of the discussion, after hearing the parties, writ petition is allowed. The order Annex.2 and order of Tribunal Annex. If it is allowed to remain as it is, result would be that similarly situated junior shall not only draw more pay but may also get rapid promotion to that of his senior. In the present situation and in view of the discussion, after hearing the parties, writ petition is allowed. The order Annex.2 and order of Tribunal Annex. 3 dated 11.9.81 and 13.10.1981 respectively are set aside with the direction that if respondent no.3 a far junior to the petitioner has been granted scale of 100-180, the petitioner is entitled to the same and if any recovery had been made, the recovered amount be repaid to the petitioner within three months from today. Admittedly, the petitioner was fixed in the grade of Rs. 100-180 from 1.4.76 to 1981 for which period it was ordered to deduct the amount from his pay, the petitioner shall be entitled to such grade of Rs. 100-180 for his period and shall continue to receive the same. On the same analogy as has been granted to his junior Om Prakash. For the period from 1981 to 1988 when petitioner was deprived of this grade, the petitioner shall be fixed in the salary for this period also, but no arrears of salary shall be paid to him for this period as consented to and agreed to by the counsel for the petitioner.The amount recovered from the period1976 till 1981 shall be refunded to him. No. cost. _