Judgment G.S.Singhvi, J. 1. The issues which arise for adjudication in this petition are whether the respondents can revise the seniority of the petitioners in the cadre of Assistant Linemen and revert them from the posts of Assistant Foremen to that of Linemem without giving notice and opportunity of hearing. 2. There is no dispute between the parties that the petitioners had joined services of the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board (for short, the Board) as T-mates on work-charge basis. Later on, they were appointed as Assistant Linemen. They were further promoted as Linemen and then as Assistant Foremen. Their grievance is that without giving them notice and opportunity of hearing, the Superintending Engineer (Operation), Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Narnual (respondent No. 3) has re-fixed their seniority in the cadre of Assistant Linemen and the Chief Engineer (Operation), Z-III, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Hissar (respondent No. 2) has reverted them as Linemen without considering objections raised by them in response to the show cause notice dated 19.3.1999. 3. The respondents have justified their decision to re-fix the seniority of the petitioners and to revert them on the premise that they have done so in compliance of the decree dated 9.10.1998 passed by Civil Judge, Mahendergarh. They have also accused the petitioners of having concealed the fact that they had filed civil suit on the same cause of action in the Court of Civil Judge, Narnaul but withdrew the same because they could not get interim relief. According to them, the petitioners have not approached the Court with clean hands and, therefore, they should not be given relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Shri Vikas Chatrath stated that he is not in a position to controvert the assertion made in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners had filed civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Mahendergarh for grant of relief similar to the one prayed for in this petition and this fact has not been disclosed in the writ petition. He, however, urged that the relief should not be denied to the petitioners because they have withdrawn the civil suit and also because C.W.P. No. 80 of 2000 filed by Krishan Lal for quashing of orders similar to those impugned in this petition has been allowed by this court on 24.3.2000. Shri H.S.Gill, Senior Advocate conceded that the case of the petitioners is similar to that of Krishan Lal and also that the writ petition filed by him has been allowed by this Court but, at the same time, he argued that the petitioners should not be given relief because their conduct is highly contumacious. 5. We have considered the respective submissions. Ordinarily, we would have declined relief to the petitioners on the ground that they are guilty of withholding a material fact from the Court, but in view of the fact that a similar petition has already been allowed by this Court and the petitioners may not be wholly responsible; for their refrain to disclose the facts relating to the civil suit, we feel that ends of justice Would be met by granting relief to them in terms of the order passed in C.W.P. No. 80 of 2000 subject to their paying costs to the respondents. 6. Hence, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 24.3.2000 passed in C.W.P. No. 80 of 2000 subject to the condition that each of the petitioners shall pay costs of Rs. 2,500/- to the Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. The amount of costs shall be deposited by them within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If they fail to do so, the respondents may file miscellaneous application for bringing this fact to the notice of the Court.