JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner has assailed validity of order dated 6.9.79 (Ann. 4) whereby he was sought to be reverted from the post of meter reader to substantive post of Helper Gr II; and entry (Ann. 6) in service record on 14.3.91 when respondent No. 2 actually executed its decision with regard to reversion pursuant to order dated 6.9.79. 2. Facts in brief, are that petitioner was initially engaged as daily rated workman on 8.6.63 and later on was appointed as work charged helper-II w.e '. 1.4.65 and was promoted as meter reader Gr. II vide order dated 7.5.75 pursuant to which he joined on 25.575 but this promotion was made effective, retrospectively from 1.4.68 vide order dated 5.5.76 (Ann. 2) as per decision of the Committee constituted in pursuance of ova (vi) Of Settlement dated 7.7.73 entered into between the then Rajasthan State Electricity Board & Prantiya Vidyut Mandal Mazdoor Federation (PVMMF). While issuing orders of promotion with retrospective effect (Ann.2) so also decision of aforementioned constituted Committee, it was made clear that any person aggrieved by Committee's decision and orders issued pursuant thereto, may be free to file appeal within 30 days to the appellate authority. According petitioner, no such appeal against his promotion was preferred by any of employees of respondents and he was never served with any notice by the appellate authority. That apart, in view of his promotion with retrospective effect from 1.4.68, he was further considered for grant of selection scale vide order dated 15.6.88 w.e.f. 1.7.79 (Ann. 5) upon completion of 11 years of satisfactory service on the post of Meter reader-II. On 14.3.91 respondent No. 2 entered in service book of petitioner stating that in view of order dated 6.9.79, he stood reverted from the post of meter reader Gr. 11 to helper-II, which according to him, for the first time came to his notice that some decision was ever taken by appellate authority with regard to his reversion in question vide order dated 6.9.79 (Ann. 4), inasmuch as such order of reversion passed by appellate authority was never given effect to for almost 11 years, rather he was allowed to continue on the post of meter reader-II continuously by respondents. Thereafter respondents called upon his explanation vide letter dated 14.5.91 (Ann. 7) asking to produce document to prove his appointment as meter reader Gr. 4), inasmuch as such order of reversion passed by appellate authority was never given effect to for almost 11 years, rather he was allowed to continue on the post of meter reader-II continuously by respondents. Thereafter respondents called upon his explanation vide letter dated 14.5.91 (Ann. 7) asking to produce document to prove his appointment as meter reader Gr. Cl w.e.f. 1.4.68, to which he explained in his representation dated 15.5.91 (Ann. 8). However. respondents failed to consider his grievance. Hence, this writ petition. 3. This Court admitted writ petition on 3.1.92 and on stay petition vide order dated 13.11.92 directed respondents not to make any recovery from petitioner till further orders,which was made absolute vide order dated 5.4.94 while deciding respondent application for vacation of stay order. 4. Shri Ajay Gupta, counsel for petitioner urged that petitioner was continuously working as meter reader-11 and his promotion on this post was made effective retrospectively w.e.f. 1.4.68 vide order dated 5.5.76 (Ann. 2) pursuant to decision of the Committee constituted as per para (iv) of settlement dated 7.7.73; but before taking decision with regard to reversion of petitioner vide order dated 6.9.79 (Ann. 4), no opportunity of hearing was ever afforded to him nor any reason has been assigned for taking such impugned decision of petitioner's reversion. Shri Gupta, in support of his contention, relied upon decision of this Court in Ramesh Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (1997 Writ L.R. 55) whereby this Court observed that no order affecting civil right of a person can be passed without affording opportunity of hearing to him who is directly affected by prejudicial decision, and respondent failed to comply with settled cardinal principles of natural justice while taking impugned decision. 5. Respondents have filed reply to writ petition. Shri Manish Bhandari, Counsel for respondents submitted that when it came to the notice of respondents that benefit granted to petitioner was not proper, appellate authority took decision to recall the order, by which he was given retrospective promotion w.e.f. 1.4.68; and that apart, as per decision of appellate authority order was revised on 6.9.79 and basically in pursuance of order dated 6.9.79 (Ann. 4), virtually order dated 5.5.76 (Ann.2) giving retrospective effect to his promotion from 1.4.68 was reviewed-according to which he i stood promoted as meter reader-II pursuant to order dated 7.5.75 in place of 1.4.68 which was made effective retrospectively vide order dated 5.5.76 (Ann. 2). 6. Respondents further submitted that not only petitioner but good number of employees who were promoted with retrospective effect, their promotions were reviewed by the appellate authority and on its recommendations, the illegality, which was committed in granting promotion retrospectively, were withdrawn and in such circumstances, no opportunity of hearing was required to be afforded to individual employee including petitioner. 7. Respondents in their reply in paras 4 to 6 have stated about the fact of review of decision taken by competent authority in granting promotion to petitioner w.e.f. 1.4.68, but has rot disclosed any reason or justification for taking such prejudicial decision against petitioner and from entire reply, reason whatsoever is not forthcoming with regard to circumstances under which decisions was taken by respondents-that too without compliance of cardinal principles of natural justice. 8. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court, vide order dated 4.2.05 time was granted to file additional affidavit. Counsel for respondents filed additional affidavit pointing out that during pendency of writ petition, petitioner has retired form service on attaining age of superannuation on 30.9.2002 and prior to it, he had submitted an affidavit along with application dated 19.9.2001 admitting that recovery sought to be made by respondents from 1.4.68 to 7.5.75 is correct and he has no objection if recovery is made affective from his retiral benefits and after due adjustment upon his fixation after grant of selection scale as per rules with revision etc. may be made. 9. may be made. 9. As against aforesaid affidavit, petitioner has also filed counter affidavit pointing out that at one point of time writ petition was dismissed in default vide order dated 8.3.2000, against which he filed restoration application in 7.4.2000 whereupon he all of a sudden met with an accident on 29.6.2000 resulting in amputation of his left leg and putting his economical condition in critical state so he was not in a position to even meet out medical as also family expenses, inasmuch as respondents under the garb of pendency of writ petition were not allowing benefit of selection scale after 1992, rather mere bent upon to make recovery from him pursuant to impugned decision of his reversion. However, despite his writ petition was restored back vide order dated 18.12.01, respondents were under misconception that restoration of writ petition will not make restoration of stay granted by this Court under such compelling circumstances, he had no option but to proceed on dotted line as was being asked by respondents. 10. Having considered rival contentions of both the parties and perused tree material on record, I find that this fact remained undisputed that petitioner was initially promoted as meter reader-II vide order dated 7.5.75, which subsequently was given retrospective effect from 1.4.68 vide order dated 5.5.76 (Ann. 2) passed on the recommendations of the Committee constituted as per para (iv) of settlement dated 7.7.73 and by virtue of which right was vested in favour of petitioner-against which no appeal was preferred by any of aggrieved employees, and in all terms, order of retrospective promotion as Meter Reader Gr. II attained finality, rather such a decision was given effect only by entering it into his service book treating his reversion from the post of meter-reader-II from 1.4.68 under order dated 5.5.76; in such fact situation, the decision of respondents for reverting petitioner on the post in question certainty resulted in civil consequences and admittedly petitioner was not served with any show cause notice before taking decision of his reversion, nor was he afforded opportunity of hearing either by appellate authority or competent authority while reviewing or taking decision of his reversion. This Court in Ramesh Sharma v. State (supra) laid down that no order affecting civil right of a person can be passed without giving an opportunity to the official, against whom prejudicial action has been taken. This Court in Ramesh Sharma v. State (supra) laid down that no order affecting civil right of a person can be passed without giving an opportunity to the official, against whom prejudicial action has been taken. Principles of natural justice are cardinal principles, which are to be complied with by State authorities even to modify an order howsoever erroneous or illegal that order might be, if such an order had bestowed any benefit on the official. Thus viewed, denial of opportunity of nearing to petitioner in defiance of principles of natural justice in my opinion clearly violates right of petitioner enshrined under Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently impugned decision of reversion of petitioner to the post in question stands vitiated. 11. Even from the reply filed by respondents, no justification has come forward as to why impugned decision was taken by appellate/competent authority or what was the error having crept in while granting benefit of promotion to the petitioner with retrospective effect vide order dated 5.5.76 (Ann. 2). 12. So far as additional affidavit of respondents is concerned, I am fully satisfied with explanation having come forward in counter affidavit of petitioner that on account of his accident resulting in amputation of his left leg when benefits were not being extended to him, circumstances have compelled him to submit alleged affidavit referred to by respondents in their additional affidavit. Once the matter was pending before this Court, ordinarily there was no occasion for petitioner to submit any affidavit, but whatever action has been taken without examining further on decision, was subject to final decision of the present writ petition and his right being affected by passing impugned order of reversion dated 6.9.79 cannot be brushed aside. I am in agreement with contention for the petitioner that once writ petition was restored back to its original number by this Court on 18.12.2001, respondents were under misconception that restoration of writ petition will not amount to restoration of stay order granted by this Court. 13. As regards recovery already made by respondents while releasing terminal benefits accrued to petitioner on his retirement, I am of the opinion that respondents have wrongly made adjustment by way of recovery pursuant to impugned order or reversion, which was subject to final decision of this writ petition. 13. As regards recovery already made by respondents while releasing terminal benefits accrued to petitioner on his retirement, I am of the opinion that respondents have wrongly made adjustment by way of recovery pursuant to impugned order or reversion, which was subject to final decision of this writ petition. Action of respondents otherwise cannot be appreciated particularly when matter was pending before this Court and the petitioner was enjoying the stay order which, was made absolute after hearing the respondents as stated above. 14. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. Order dated 6.9.79 (Ann.4) in so far as it relates to the petitioner and so also entry made pursuant thereto (Ann. 6) on 14.3.91 in his service record. are quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to release all consequential benefits flowing as a consequence upon quashing of impugned order of reversion (Annx. 4). After due computation of aforesaid consequential benefits including recovery, which was made during pendency of writ petition from petitioner, be paid within three months from today. No order as to costs.Writ petition allowed. *******