RAJENDRA MENON, J. ( 1 ) AS common questions are involved in all these cases and facts are also identical, they are being disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS in all these petitions are working in the water resources department. Initially, they were appointed on daily wage basis in the post of copyist, typist, referencer and have been continuously working from various dates prior to december 31, 1988. ( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that some of them are working since 1982 and 1983, were agitating their claim for being regularised in service before various fora. Some of the employees had filed applications before the labour court claiming their classification as permanent employees and certain other employees had taken action for filing applications before the state administrative tribunal claiming regularisation in service. When such proceedings were pending in the case of some of the employees, state government issued circulars on december 31, 1999 and clarified the same by another circular dated february 14, 2000 wherein certain procedure was laid down for discontinuing services of the daily wage employees. It was also emphasised in these circulars that before terminating the services of daily wage employees, scrutiny of each and every case shall be made and after scrutinizing only, action shall be taken for terminating the services of daily wage employees. ( 4 ) IN the meanwhile, keeping in view certain other directives and circulars issued by the state government in the water resources department, a screening committee consisting of 10 senior officials including the chief engineer, rajghat canal project, datia, chief engineer, bodhi project, bhopal and other executive engineers were constituted and the committee was entrusted with the task of screening the cases of eligible daily wage employees to be considered for regularisation in the services of the department. Accordingly, a letter dated september 3, 2001, anneuxre p-2 filed in w. p. no. 1781/2003 was circulated, indicating the service particulars of about 42 employees which included the present petitioners. Objections were called for from various quarters with regard to seniority of the employees and after conducting the process of screening and selection, orders were issued on june 3, 2003 vide annexure p-7 filed in w. p. no. 1781/2003 and similar, orders passed in other cases regularising the present petitioners in service. Objections were called for from various quarters with regard to seniority of the employees and after conducting the process of screening and selection, orders were issued on june 3, 2003 vide annexure p-7 filed in w. p. no. 1781/2003 and similar, orders passed in other cases regularising the present petitioners in service. After these orders were passed, petitioners were posted, at various places and they proceeded to join and according to the petitioners, some of them had joined on june 5, 2003 and on various other dates when on june 11, 2003 on the basis of telephonic instructions received from the engineer-in-chief, it was decided to cancel the orders of regularisation issued in favour of the petitioners and vide annexure p-1 dated june 10, 2003, the order of regularisation dated june 3, 2003, have been cancelled. ( 5 ) IN all the cases, it is the contention of the petitioners that cancellation of the orders of regularisation without hearing them, without giving them opportunity of making. Representation is unsustainable. That apart, during the course of hearing, shri r. d. jain, learned senior counsel and shri m. p. s. raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the only reason why the order impugned has been passed is due to 30% reduction in the strength of the department and in that view of the matter about 300 employees working as assistant ograde-iii are in excess, therefore, regularisation is being cancelled. It was submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, referring to various documents and in particular to a letter 5 annexure p-14 filed in w. p. no. 1781/2003 and as annexure p/z in w. p. no. 1810/2003 dated april 26, 2003 to indicate that the competent authority of the department has intimated about availability of vacancy in the establishment where the petitioners have been regularised. It was also emphasised during the course of hearing that petitioners have completed more than six months service on the post continuously by virtue of clause 2 (5) of the standard standing orders issued under the madhya pradesh industrial employment (standing orders) act, petitioners were entitled to be classified as permanent employees. In case of two petitioners, namely: smt. Saria arora and smt. Vandana ghorpde in w. p. no. 1781/2003, labour court has classified them, as permanent employees and appeals filed by the respondents have been dismissed by the industrial court. In case of two petitioners, namely: smt. Saria arora and smt. Vandana ghorpde in w. p. no. 1781/2003, labour court has classified them, as permanent employees and appeals filed by the respondents have been dismissed by the industrial court. That apart, it was pointed out that in certain cases, orders of regularisation have not been cancelled and employees are still working in the regularised post. It was emphasised that even if the posts are in excess then for cancelling the orders of regularisation, it has to be established that petitioners and the junior-most employees are regularised, therefore, they are entitled to be regularised. It has been specifically pleaded in the petitions and it was also argued that many other employees working in various places of the state who are junior to the petitioners have not been de-regularised, much later daily wage employees have been regularised and in their cases, no cancellation has been done after reduction of 30% posts. ( 6 ) IT was, therefore, the case of the petitioners that in an arbitrary manner, mechanically without application of mind such an order cancelling the regularisation which has the effect of taking away the rights accruing to the petitioners is unsustainable. In support of their contention, petitioners have relied upon the following judgments: (1) gajanan l. Pernekar v. State of goa and another, air 1999 sc 3262 : 1999 (8) scc 378 . (2) sabcato bachaspati v. State of m. P. And others, 2003 (1) jlj 6 . (3) engineer-in-chief, p. B. E. D. And others v. Budha rao magaide and others, 2002-ii-llj-353 (mp ). (4) mata prasad sahu v. State of m. P. And others, 2001 (1) jlj 116 and (5) a. P. Aggarwal v. Government of nct of delhi and another air 2000 sc 205 : 2000 (1) scc 600 . to emphasise that the action of the respondents is clearly unsustainable. (4) mata prasad sahu v. State of m. P. And others, 2001 (1) jlj 116 and (5) a. P. Aggarwal v. Government of nct of delhi and another air 2000 sc 205 : 2000 (1) scc 600 . to emphasise that the action of the respondents is clearly unsustainable. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the submission is that the impugned order, annexure p- 1 is liable to be quashed.- ( 8 ) REFUTING the aforesaid, shri deepak shrivastava, learned government advocate and kumari chitra saxena, learned panel lawyer for the respondents submitted that in the instant case, it has been found by the competent authority that regularisation of the petitioners had been done in excess of the sanctioned vacant strength of the department, and therefore, order was issued on june 10, 2003 telephonically and subsequently confirmed vide annexure r/4 on june 11, 2003 to cancel the orders of regularisation issued in the case of petitioners. It is the case of the respondents that on april 23, 2003, the general administration department has removed the ban on recruitment process, and therefore, the orders of regularisation of the petitioners on the post of assistant grade-iii were issued on the basis of vacant posts given by the chief engineer, rajghat canal project, datia and chief engineer, bodhi project, bhopal. However, after issuance of the order, it was found that because of imposition of 30% cut in the sanctioned strength by the state government, the department has already in excess of 300 employees of assistant grade-ill, and therefore, issuance of regularisation of the petitioners were cancelled by telephonic conversation and subsequently confirmed on june 11, 2003 vide annexure r/4. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, it was argued that as the petitioners can be regularised only against the available vacant posts and there being already employees in excess of 300, the impugned action is clearly permissible and no relief can be granted to the petitioners. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, it was argued that as the petitioners can be regularised only against the available vacant posts and there being already employees in excess of 300, the impugned action is clearly permissible and no relief can be granted to the petitioners. ( 10 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the 3 parties and on perusal of the record, it is seen that initially action has been taken for regularising the services of the petitioners considering the length of service rendered by them and keeping in view their seniority, in 5 doing so, decision was taken on the basis of the fact that in the newly constituted posts under the chief engineer, rajghat canal project, datia and sindh project so also, in view of the letters issued by the chief engineer, rajghat canal project, datia and chief engineer, bodhi project, bhopal vacancies were available to regularise the services of the petitioners. From the aforesaid averment which is made in paragraph-4 of the reply filed by the respondents, it is clear that action for regularisation of the petitioners was initiated because of the vacancies indicated by the officials as indicated hereinabove. The cases of these petitioners were therefore, scrutinised and they were regularised on the basis of the same. Now the only reason indicated in the return for cancelling the regularisation is that in view of 30% cut in the sanctioned strength issued by the state government, employees being in excess regularisation of the petitioners has been cancelled. ( 11 ) THERE is no dispute in accepting the contention of the respondent/state that they are entitled to reduce their sanctioned strength, and can deregularise certain employees who are in excess of the sanctioned strength. But the same has to be done in a fair manner and the principle of last come first go has to be followed. A person having shorter length of service and even if regularised earlier may have to make room for an employee who has been regularised subsequently and has a longer period of service keeping in view his seniority. The 30% cut is applicable throughout the state and therefore, the process has to be done keeping in view the seniority and date of appointment of the employees working in the whole state, it cannot be implemented by selecting a particular division or circle. The 30% cut is applicable throughout the state and therefore, the process has to be done keeping in view the seniority and date of appointment of the employees working in the whole state, it cannot be implemented by selecting a particular division or circle. Therefore, if the reduction in strength is: necessary and a process of de-regularisation was to be carried out then this has to be done by considering the cases of each and every employee keeping in view the seniority and date of regularisation but picking up of few employees from a particular division and de-regularising them is not the proper way for implementing the ban imposed by the state government for reducing the strength by 30%. ( 12 ) IN the present case, even though learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of hearing have pointed out various discrepancies like orders of classification passed in cases of some petitioners by the labour court and affirmed by the industrial court, availability of vacant posts in the establishment where the petitioners were working and ignoring seniority of many of the petitioners while passing the impugned order. All these factors have to be taken note of and merely passing a mechanical order on telephonic message. . . . . . . . de-regularisation of the employee was not the correct procedure. A right had accrued to the petitioners when the, order was passed on june 3, 2003. If the respondents want to withdraw or cancel the same, it was incumbent upon them to issue show cause notice to the petitioners and consider their objection with regard to various, grounds raised by them in the petitions. By meeting the aforesaid objection, respondents, were duty bound to implement the 30% cut imposed by the state government in a fair and reasonable manner and picking of certain class of employees from a particular division and taking action against them for cancelling their orders of regularisation without considering the cases of employees working in the other divisions may result in discrimination inasmuch as, a particular employee working in a particular division may be senior keeping in view his length of service and another employee in another division may be junior to many of the employees. . . . . . . . . . . The benefits of regularisation which is denied (sic) to a senior employee only because the cut imposed is implemented in a particular division by the respondents. To avoid such a discriminatory treatment, respondents should have considered the cases of each and every employee working throughout the state in various divisions and thereafter, if required should have imposed the cut in a fair and reasonable manner after following the principle of last come first go. So also, other statutory requirements to be followed in such cases. Mere passing of an order on telephone to de-regularise the employees and to issue an order in the facts and circumstances of the cases, in the opinion of 5 this court is clearly unsustainable. ( 13 ) EVEN in the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the parties and in particular, judgment of a division bench of this court in the case of subrato bachaspati (supra) and a judgment of the supreme court in the case of gajanan l. Pernekar (supra) contemplates that impugned action is hit by provisions of article 14 of the constitution and passing an administrative order having adverse effect on an accrued right of an employee without giving him opportunity of hearing is unsustainable. ( 14 ) IF show cause notices were issued to the petitioners, they would have been in a position to demonstrate before the competent authority various facts like passing of classification orders of some of the employees by the labour court and industrial court, junior (sic) employees being regularised earlier than some of the petitioners and the fact that they are still continuing in service as a regular employee and various other reasons on the basis of which petitioners would have been in a position to demonstrate that the action could not be taken against them. That being so, the process followed in passing the impugned order without hearing petitioners and without giving them any opportunity of representation, in the opinion of this court is unsustainable and in particular in the back drop of the fact that the entire process of regularisation was initiated on the basis of vacant posts given by the chief engineer, rajghat canal project, datia and chief engineer, bodhi project, bhopal as admitted by the respondents in paragraph 4 of their reply. ( 15 ) IN view of the aforesaid, as already indicated hereinabove, this court is of the considered view that the action taken in the present case is clearly unsustainable. ( 16 ) ACCORDINGLY, all these petitions are allowed. Impugned order dated june 10, 2003 passed in case of petitioners cancelling their orders of regularisation dated june 3, 2003 are quashed. In case the respondents feel that the petitioners are not entitled to regularisation, they are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. ( 17 ) AS the orders impugned have been quashed, the petitioners would be deemed to have been continued as regular employees without any break and also consequential benefits to which they are entitled to shall be granted to them. ( 18 ) ACCORDINGLY, petitions stand allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid direction. ( 19 ) A copy of this order be placed on the record of other connected writ petitions. .