JUDGMENT 1. - The service of the appellant and other seven similarly situated field workers engaged in National Malaria Eradication Programme came to the orally terminated on June 6, 1989. Said order had been challenged by them individually by filing writ petitions before the Single Bench of this Court. s Learned Single Judge allowed seven writ petitions of Siya Ram. Bhim Raj, Ram Gopal, Jai Narain Meena, Ram Lal, Radhey Shyam and Kajod Mal Meena vide order dated June 25, 1991 and issued directions thus: "Consequently these writ petitions are allowed. Retrenchment of the petitioners from service by the respondents is declared as illegal and 1r) void. The petitioners should be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits regarding continuity of service etc. The petitioners shall also be considered for regular appointment as Class IV servants in accordance with the Rules of 1963 and the Government Circular dated 23.1.1986. The respondents shall pay cost of Rs. 500/- to each of the petitioners." 2. It appears that after implementation of the order passed by this Court the appellant instituted writ petition that could only be heard on May s 31, 2001 on which date counsel for appellant did not appear and the writ petition was dismissed on merits. Against this order that the instant special appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 3. We have heard the submissions advanced before us and scanned the material on record. 4. On the date when the case was heard nobody was present on behalf of the appellant to assist learned Single Judge. It was not brought to the notice of learned Single Judge that writ petitions of similarly situated persons were allowed by this court and they were reinstated in the service. We find that the case of appellant is not distinguishable with that of the cases of Siya Ram. Shim Raj, Ram Gopal, Jai Narain Meena. Ram Lal, Radhey Shyarn and Kajod Mal Meena who were reinstated in the service long back. The appellant therefore is entitled to be reinstated in the service as he had completed 240 days while working as field worker. The oral order dated June 6, 1989 was against the principles of natural justice and in view of the ratio indicated in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, JT 1998 (7) SC 243 ; State of U.P. v. Mohd. The oral order dated June 6, 1989 was against the principles of natural justice and in view of the ratio indicated in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, JT 1998 (7) SC 243 ; State of U.P. v. Mohd. Noah, AIR 1958 SC 86 and A.V. Venkateshwarn Collector of Customs v. Ramchand Sobhraj Vadhwani, AIR 1961 SC 1506 the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was maintainable. 5. For the foregoing reasons we allow the instant special appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated May 31, 2001 passed by learned Engle Judge 6, 1980, we direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant in service forthwith. The appellant shall however not be entitled to back wages, c it he will be deemed to be in service continuously. The appellant shall also be considered for regular appointment as Class-IV servant in accordance with the Rules of 1963 and the Government Circular dated January 23, 1986. There shall be no order as to costs.Special Appeal Allowed - Direction also given for Considering Appellant for Regular Appointment. *******