JUDGMENT : - 1. HEARD Shri Shyam Prakash Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner and Miss Ainakshi Sharma learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. PETITIONERS No. 1 and 2 were appointed on 1.5.85 as Mate on daily wages. Petitioner No. 3 was appointed on 1.9.85 as Chaukidar. Petitioner No. 4 was appointed as Beldar on 17.12.85. All the aforesaid petitioners were working on daily wages in Public Works Department, Varanasi on 12.4.89. A letter was issued by Chief Engineer asking for details of those employees who had completed three years continuous service so that they may be taken in permanent work-charge establishment. Since the petitioners had completed three years of service, therefore, by order dated 21.10.91 Annexure-4 to the writ petition the petitioners were taken in regular establishment in the resultant vacancies according to the seniority list prepared by the respondents. By order dated 31.3.92 the work superintendent has cancelled the appointment of the petitioners in work-charge establishment on the ground that in pursuance of telephonic talk with superintending Engineer the appointment of the petitioners in work-charge establishment stands cancelled with effect from 1.4.92. The petitioners challenge the order dated 31.3.92 Annexure-6 to the writ petition by means of the instant writ petition and the petitioners have also prayed for regularisation of their services. This Court on 13.4.92 passed interim order staying the operation of the order dated 31.3.92. The petitioners are continuing in service in the regular work-charge establishment under the interim order of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that there was no illegality in the order of Superintending Engineer dated 21.10.91 by which the petitioners were taken in regular work-charge establishment. The order of Superintending Engineer dated 31.10.91 was not cancelled by the respondent and the work superintendent could not revert the petitioners on daily wages on the oral instructions received by him on telephone from Superintending Engineer. Learned standing counsel on the other hand supported the impugned order and urged that since the petitioners' appointment was contrary to Government order dated 8.1.90, therefore, the petitioner could not be taken in regular work-charge establishment nor their services could be regularised. 3. THE respondents have not filed Government order dated 8.1.90 to support their stand taken in the counter affidavit nor the respondents have filed any order of Superintending Engineer or the order of any higher authority. 3. THE respondents have not filed Government order dated 8.1.90 to support their stand taken in the counter affidavit nor the respondents have filed any order of Superintending Engineer or the order of any higher authority. The order dated 21.10.91 was cancelled or withdrawn by the respondents. Even in the counter affidavit nothing has been stated as to why the order dated 21. 10. 91 was cancelled. The petitioners were working as daily wager for more than three years and they had been taken in regular work-charge establishment in the resultant vacancies by order dated 21. 10. 91. Once the petitioners were taken in work-charge establishment they acquired right to remain in work-charge establishment. It was not open to the respondents to revert the petitioners on daily wages without cancelling the order dated 21. 10. 91 merely on oral instructions received on telephone. The impugned order dated 31.3.92 is arbitrary and has been passed behind the back of the petitioners and cannot be maintained. 4. THE other argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they are entitled for regularisation of their service is liable to be accepted. In paragraph 16 of the writ petition the petitioner had stated that juniors to the petitioner have been regularised by the respondents. This is not disputed by the respondents. The petitioners are working for the last 14 years in work-charge establishment and they are entitled for consideration of their claim for regularisation in accordance with law by the respondents. Since the petitioners have been continued in permanent work-charge establishment under the interim order of this Court their appointment shall not be disturbed. 5. IN the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 31.3.92 passed by respondent No. 3 Annexure-6 to the writ petition is quashed with all consequential benefits of service to the petitioners. The respondents shall consider the claim for regularisation of the petitioners in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in this judgment within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned respondents. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition Allowed.