JUDGMENT : R.K. Patra, J. - The petitioner in this writ petition assails the validity of the office order No. 2649 dated 14.11.1996 (Annexure-4) by which the Chairman of Notified Area Council, Sunabeda has terminated his service as Octroi Peon. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he had been working as N.M.R. under the PH. Sanitation establishment of Notified Area Council (in brief. 'N.A.C), Sunabeda from 1980 continuously without any break or interruption and on consideration of his seniority and performance in duty, his services were regularised as Octroi Peon with effect from 16.4.1995 against an existing vacancy as per office order dated 22.4.1995 (Annexure-1). As a consequence of regularisation, he joined as Octroi Peon and while working as such, by office order No. 474 dated 20.2.1996 (Annexure-2) he was reverted and was asked to join as D.L.R. under PH.Sanitation establishment. The Chairman, N.A.C., Sunabeda however passed order dated 16.3.1996 (Annexure-3) absorbing the petitioner in the post of Octroi Peon on temporary basis at a consolidated pay of Rs. 1000/- per month. While he was working as Octroi Peon in a regular post pursuant to the order at Annexure-3, the impugned office order was issued terminating his services. In the said order it was mentioned that his services were terminated as per the Council resolutions dated 28.9.1996 and 28.10.1996 "in absence of sanctioned post of Government". 3. Opposite parties 1 and 2 have filed counter affidavit. Their case is that while the petitioner was working on N.M.R. basis he was regularised as Octroi Peon with effect from 16.4.1995 in the existing vacancy. The vacancy arose following the promotion of one Octroi Peon as Octroi Tax Collector. In May, 1995, the elected Chairman assumed office. He passed order for reversion of the said Octroi Tax Collector to the post of octroi Peon. As a consequence of such reversion, the petitioner who was working in the post of Octroi Peon had to be reverted to work as D.L.R. Later, although he was appointed as Octroi Peon, his services were terminated in absence of sanctioned post by the Government. 4. This case was heard on 23.6.1998. As a consequence of such reversion, the petitioner who was working in the post of Octroi Peon had to be reverted to work as D.L.R. Later, although he was appointed as Octroi Peon, his services were terminated in absence of sanctioned post by the Government. 4. This case was heard on 23.6.1998. As the facts stated in the counter affidavit of opposite parties 1 and 2 were not clear and specific, we directed the opposite party No. 1 to file an affidavit indicating as to how many sanctioned posts of Octroi Tax Collector and Octroi Peon were existing in Sunabeda N.A.C. during the relevant period and the names of the concerned incumbents who were holding those posts. Although opposite parties 1 and 2 have not filed any affidavit, learned counsel appearing for the Executive Officer, N.A.C, Sunabeda produced before us a letter which he received from him (Executive Officer) containing necessary particulars. It appears from the said letter that the vacancy position of Octroi Peon and Octroi Tax Collector in the N.A.C. for the year 1995 was as follows: ______________________________________________________________________ Sl. No. Name of the Posts Sanctioned Vacancy numbers ______________________________________________________________________ 1. O.T.C. 12 1-Vacant till 16.4.1995 2. O. Peon 12 1-Vacancy arose on 16.4.1995 due to the promotion of Sri. S.K. Mahallick, Peon to O.T.C." ______________________________________________________________________ It was further mentioned in the said letter that the petitioner who was working as N.M.R. was allowed to continue as a regular Octroi Peon in the existing vacancy on 16.4.1995 as per the office order No. 832 dated 22.4.1996. Consequent upon the reversion of S.K.Mahalick, Octroi Tax CollectoY as per office order No. 471 dated 20.2.1996, the petitioner was reverted and was directed to perform duty as D.L.R. under P.H.Sanitation work as per office order No. 474 dated 20.2.1996. 5. The impugned order at Annexure-4 clearly states that the services of the petitioner as Octroi Peon were terminated "in absence of sanctioned post of Government". The short question that arises for consideration is whether there was no sanctioned post of Octroi Peon which necessitated termination of petitioner's service. From the vacancy position indicated above, it would appear that at the material time there were 12 sanctioned posts of octroi Peons. The short question that arises for consideration is whether there was no sanctioned post of Octroi Peon which necessitated termination of petitioner's service. From the vacancy position indicated above, it would appear that at the material time there were 12 sanctioned posts of octroi Peons. We may assume that the petitioner was regularized as Octroi Peon with effect from 16.4.1995 as per the office order at Annexure-1 consequent upon the vacancy caused due to promotion of S.K.Mahalick as Octroi Tax Collector. It may also be assumed that S.K. Mahalick was reverted from the post of Octroi Peon which required the petitioner to vacate the post of Octroi Peon to make room for S.K.Mahalick. The fact however remains that by subsequent order dated 16.3.1996 (Annexure-3) the petitioner and one Benudhar Bihari were absorbed in the post of Octroi Peons and two others namely, Laxmidhar Mohapatra and Trinath Panda were appointed as such on temporary basis. The aforesaid order Annexure-3 clearly goes to establish that there existed vacancies against which the petitioner and three others could be accommodated as Octroi Peons. It is not the case of the N.A.C. that when the office order dated 16.3.1996 (Annexure-3) was passed absorbing him as Octroi Peon, there was no sanctioned post or vacancy. It is also not their case that the order (Annexure-3) was passed because of the vacancy caused due to promotion of S.K.Mahallick. They could not have taken this plea also in as much as S.K.Mahallick was promoted on 16.4.1995 as Octroi Tax Collector and against the post held by S.K.Mahallick the petitioner was absorbed as Octroi Peon with effect from 16.4.1995 (vide Annexure-1). No material was placed before us to show that when the petitioner was again absorbed by the order at Annexure-3, there was no sanctioned post of Octroi Peon, for the aforesaid reasons we are not inclined to accept the plea of the opposite parties that the impugned order of termination of service was passed because there was no sanctioned post of Octroi Peon. 6. In the result, the impugned order dated 14.11.1996 at Annexure-4 cannot be sustained which is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to reinstate the petitioner as Octroi Peon forthwith with back wages. The writ petition is allowed. There would be no order as to costs. Pradipta Ray, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Allowed