Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Petitioner has challenged order dated 01.07.1992, whereby his services were terminated by respondents on the pretext that two posts of LDC were abolished and as a consequence thereof decision was taken for dispensing with his services. 2. Case of petitioner, in brief , is that after going through process of selection made by respondents, petitioner was appointed as LDC in scale of 880-1680/-vide order dated 03.04.1988 (Ex. 2) initially for one month but respondents vide order dated 30.06.1988 (Ex. 6) partially modified order (Ex. 2) and placed petitioner on probation for two years. While he was continuously holding post of LDC, respondents vide order dated 01.07.1992 ( Ex. 9) took decision for termination of his services giving effect from 31.07.1992 on the pretext that two posts of LDCs were abolished. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Shri Manoj Pareek, Counsel for petitioner submitted that if two posts of LDCs have been abolished, respondents were under obligation to follow principle of "last come first go" and junior most persons who were appointed as LDCs much after petitioner, were retained in service and without any justification, respondents adopted pick and choose method, and without complying with principles of "last come first go". took decision for termination of petitioner service order dated 01.07.1992 (Ex. 9) , w.e.f. 31.07.1992. 4. Shri Pareek further urged that in seniority list dated 12.07.1993 (Ex.3) name of petitioner finds place at S. No. 5, and he has been shown to have been appointed w.e.f. 07.04.1988, and below him, there are five candidates, and among whom, three were appointed alongwith him but rest of two at S.No. 9 & 10 were appointed on 29.04.1989 and 11.09.1989, which established the fact, that while taking decision for dispensing with services of petitioner, juniors were retained. Shri Pareek urged that order dated 01.07.1992 (Ex. 9) be declared void being violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, so also of the principles of natural justice, Shri Pareek further submitted that Khubhchand Nandwana, who was immediate junior to him, as shown in seniority list (Ex. Shri Pareek urged that order dated 01.07.1992 (Ex. 9) be declared void being violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, so also of the principles of natural justice, Shri Pareek further submitted that Khubhchand Nandwana, who was immediate junior to him, as shown in seniority list (Ex. 10), his services alongwith petitioner were also dispensed with under the garb of abolition of two posts, had also preferred writ petition No. 4785/1992 before this Court, which was decided on 29.07.1992, thereby order of his termination was quashed by this Court on the ground that respondent failed to comply with principle of "last come first go", a copy of order dated 29.07.1992 passed by this Court in Khubchands case (Supra) has been placed on record as Ex.11. 5. Respondents filed reply to the writ petition. Shri B.K. Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate submitted that decision was taken for termination of service only for the reason that two posts of LDCs were abolished and order has been passed with due compliance of natural justice but the statement made is totally vague. 6. I have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Documents placed on record depict that juniors in the cadre of LDC were retained by respondents while taking decision for termination of petitioner vide order dated 01.07.1992 (Ex. 9), and thus the decision with regard to termination was taken on account of abolition to posts of LDCs without complying with principle of "last come firs go" under which juniors in the cadre of LDC were retained which in my opinion, was in clear violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. as is clearly evident from seniority list dated 12.07.1993 (Ex. 10) and that apart, next junior to petitioner is Khubchand Nandvana who was also terminated from service on the same ground of abolition of posts, has been reinstated in service as a consequence of his termination being quashed by this Court vide Judgment dated 29.07.1992 (Ex. 11) holding it to be violative of principle of "last come first go". . 7. Before parting with this order, the impugned termination order dated 01.07.1992 (Ex. 11) holding it to be violative of principle of "last come first go". . 7. Before parting with this order, the impugned termination order dated 01.07.1992 (Ex. 9) was not given effect by virtue of interim stay order dated 31.07.1992, which was confirmed vide order dated 110.1993 of this Court and as a consequence thereof , the petitioner has been still working in the cadre of LDC in the office of respondents. 8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 01.07.1992 (Ex. 2) is quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits flowing from quashing of order of termination. No order as to costs.