JUDGMENT B.N. Agrawal & Gurusharan Sharma, JJ. Both the applications are being disposed of by one order, as the matter is inter-connected. Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8255 of 1991 has been filed for quashing order dated 28.8.1991, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Saran, respondent no. 2, contained in annexure 1, by which one Shailesh Tiwari, respondent no. 5 was reinstated in service and consequent to that, the petitioner, who was working as dafadar with Ekma Police Station, was removed from service. Civil Review No. 145 of 1992 has been filed for review of order dated 20.2.1991 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4882 of 1990. 2. The short facts are that one Laxman Sah was working as dafadar of Halka no. 3 within Ekma Police Station in the District of Saran, who resigned from service. Thereafter, the petitioner was temporarily engaged to serve as dafadar of the aforesaid Halka in place of the said Laxman Sah with effect from 2.2.1986. While the petitioner was serving as dafadar at the said place a report was received from the officer-in-charge of Ekma Police Station to the effect that the petitioner was being suspect in a criminal case therefore, the petitioner was recommended to be removed from service. By order dated 22.8.1988 on the basis of the said report, the petitioner was removed from service and in his place respondent no. 5 was appointed as dafadar. The petitioner filed a representation on 25.8.1988 before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, Chapra challenging veracity of the aforesaid report, on the basis of which the petitioner was removed from service. The matter was directed to be enquired into and ultimately the Inspector of Police, Ekma Circle, after due enquiry reported that the report submitted by the Officer-in-charge was entirely false; as such, he recommended for reinstatement of the petitioner in service. Thereafter, on the basis of the said recommendation Superintendent of Police, Saran by his order dated 26.4.1990 reinstated the petitioner in service and, consequently respondent no. 5 was discharged. 3. Respondent no. Thereafter, on the basis of the said recommendation Superintendent of Police, Saran by his order dated 26.4.1990 reinstated the petitioner in service and, consequently respondent no. 5 was discharged. 3. Respondent no. 5 by filing a writ before this Court bearing Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4882 of 1990 challenged that portion of the aforesaid order dated 26.4.1990, whereby he was discharged from service and by order dated 20.2.1991 the writ application was allowed and the aforesaid order, so far the same was passed against respondent no. 5, was quashed on the sole ground that the same was passed without any notice to him. After passing of the aforesaid order by this Court by order dated 28.8.1991, contained in annexure 1, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Saran, respondent no.5, was reinstated in service and the petitioner was discharged. 4. Challenging the aforesaid order of his discharge passed on 28.8.1991, contained in annexure 1, the petitioner has filed the present writ application. After filing of the writ application, the petitioner was advised to file an application for review of order dated 20.2.1991, passed in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4882 of 1990, pursuant to which order he was discharged from service and the said application was numbered as Civil Review No. 145 of 1992. 5. It may be stated that at the time of admission of the writ application operation of the aforesaid order of his discharge was not stayed; therefore, by virtue of order dated 28.8.1991, respondent no. 5 has continued in service for a period of eight years. In the review application, ground taken by the petitioner is that he did not receive any notice of the said writ application; therefore, prayer has been made for recall and review of the aforesaid order passed in the said Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4882 of 1990 on 20.2.1991. The fact that the petitioner did not receive any notice of the said writ application has not been denied either on behalf of the State or on behalf of respondent no. 5, who has been made party in the review application as well and has appeared through his counsel. It is well settled that before passing any adverse order the concerned person is required to be noticed. As, admittedly, no notice was served upon the petitioner order passed in the writ application is fit to be reviewed. 6. 5, who has been made party in the review application as well and has appeared through his counsel. It is well settled that before passing any adverse order the concerned person is required to be noticed. As, admittedly, no notice was served upon the petitioner order passed in the writ application is fit to be reviewed. 6. As we have found above that order passed in the writ application is fit to be reviewed, the consequential order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Saran, on 28.8.1991, whereby respondent no. 5 was reinstated in service and the petitioner was discharged from service is also fit to be quashed. 7. On the last occasion, when we were going to finally dispose of the applications, we felt that as respondent no. 5 has worked for about eight years, it is a fit case, in which concerned authority should accommodate him as dafadar either in Ekma Police Station or in any other police station; therefore, we adjourned the case to enable learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State to obtain instruction. Today learned counsel appearing on behalf of State stated that he has received instruction that there is no vacancy under Ekma Police Station, but vacancy of dafadar does exist under Manjhi Police Station, which is contiguous to Ekma Police Station within the District of Saran and he can be accommodated there. 8. It appears that the petitioner has remained out of service for a period of about 8 years because of order dated 28.8.1991, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Saran, for no fault of him, which order is being quashed by this Court by this order; therefore, we are of the view that he is entitled to payment of remuneration from 28.8.1991 till the date formal order of reinstatement of the petitioner is passed pursuant to this order. 9. For the foregoing reasons, Civil review no. 145 of 1992 is allowed, order dated 20.2.1991 passed in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4882 of 1990 is recalled and the said writ application is dismissed. Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8255 of 1991 is allowed and order, contained in annexure 1, is hereby quashed. The Superintendent of Police, Saran, respondent no. For the foregoing reasons, Civil review no. 145 of 1992 is allowed, order dated 20.2.1991 passed in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4882 of 1990 is recalled and the said writ application is dismissed. Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8255 of 1991 is allowed and order, contained in annexure 1, is hereby quashed. The Superintendent of Police, Saran, respondent no. 2 is directed to pass a formal order of reinstatement of the petitioner as dafadar under Ekma Police Station and pay his remuneration from 28.8.1991 till the date of passing of the formal order of reinstatement within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order by the petitioner before Superintendent of Police, Saran, respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 is hereby directed to appoint respondent no.5, Shailendra Tiwari, upon the vacant post of dafadar under Manjhi Police Station within the same time. 10. With the aforesaid directions, both the applications are, thus, disposed of.