ORDER 1. The petitioners are the employees under the respondent. The respondent promoted the petitioners as Senior Field Assistants by order dated 9-10-1992. On 23-11-1992, the petitioners reported for duty in the promoted cadre against the places posted. On 18-3-1996, the Government issued an order in supersession of all earlier orders relating to the grant of stagnation increments. This Government Order dated 18-3-1996 came into effect from 1-4-1996. The petitioners approached the respondent by giving a representation on 17-4-1996 and 18-4-1996 respectively for grant of first stagnation increment. Accordingly, the respondent granted the first stagnation increment by his order dated 4-6-1996. Thereafter, the petitioners gave representations on 5-3-1997 and 12-6-1997 respectively for grant of second stagnation increment. Reacting to these representations, the respondent issued the impugned endorsement dated 22-5-1997 Annexure K , rejecting the claim of the petitioners on the ground that they have foregone the promotion. Subsequently, the respondent by his order dated 9-7-1998-Annexure M , has withdrawn the grant of first stagnation increment to the petitioners. Thereafter, when the petitioners requested the respondent to consider their claim for grant of stagnation increment, the respondent rejected the same by issuing an endorsement dated 2-7-1999 on the ground that the stagnation increments sanctioned to the petitioners earlier are cancelled. The petitioners have called in question the impugned order dated 9-7-1998 and the endorsement dated 2-7-1999 vide Annexures M and O respectively to the writ petition and for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to grant the stagnation increments to the petitioners. 2. Sri. Amresh A. Angadi, learned counsel for the petitioners contend that after promotion, the last increment sanctioned to them was on 1-3-1995. Subsequently, the Government Order dated 18-3-1996 came into force w.e.f. 1-4-1996 providing for grant of stagnation increment. As per this Government Order dated 18-3-1996, the petitioners are entitled for first stagnation increment w.e.f. 1-4-1996. In accordance with law and in terms of the Government Order dated 18-3-1996, the respondent by order dated 4-6-1996 granted first stagnation increment to the petitioners. Without any justification, the respondents arbitrarily withdrew the first stagnation increment granted to the petitioners under the impugned order dated 9-7-1998 and Annexure M to the writ petition. He further contends that the petitioners request for grant of second stagnation increment was unjustly rejected by the respondent on the ground that the earlier stagnation increment granted to the petitioners were all cancelled. 3. Sri. He further contends that the petitioners request for grant of second stagnation increment was unjustly rejected by the respondent on the ground that the earlier stagnation increment granted to the petitioners were all cancelled. 3. Sri. B. V. Puttegowda, learned Counsel for the respondent contends that on 15-10-1991 the petitioners are promoted to the post of Senior Field Assistants and they refused to report in the promoted post. Since the petitioners refused the promotion, they are not entitled for the benefit of grant of stagnation increment under the Government Order dated 18-3-1996. He justifies the action of the respondent in passing the impugned orders. 4. Heard arguments on both the sides and perused the entire writ papers. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners refused to report for duty in the promoted post as Senior Field Assistants in the year 1991. But the respondent again promoted the petitioners by order dated 9-10-1992 and the petitioners reported in the promoted post as Senior field Assistants on 23-11-1992. It is also not in dispute that in the promoted post, the petitioners had drawn the last increment on 1-3-1995. The Government Order dated 18-3-1996 came to be issued in supersession of all the earlier Government Orders relating to the grant of stagnation increments. Clause (4) of the Government Order dated 18-3-1996 specifies that, the benefit of stagnation increments will not be admissible to a government servant who forgoes his promotion voluntarily or who after his promotion, seeks revision on his own accord to the lower post held by him, before his promotion. In this case, the petitioners accepted the promotion made on 9-10-1992 and reported for duty on 23-11-1992 in the promoted post as Senior field Assistants. Considering the claim of petitioners for grant of first stagnation increment, the respondent sanctioned the same by order dated 4-6-1996. 6. The respondent under the impugned order dated 9-7-1998 has withdrawn the first stagnation increment granted to the petitioners on the ground that they have foregone promotion to the post of Senior Field Assistants. This reasoning under the impugned order dated 9-7-1998 is factually incorrect and the same is contrary to the Government Order dated 18-3-1996. The respondents failed to take into consideration the promotion of petitioners as Senior Field Assistants vide order dated 9-10-1992 and the acceptance of the same by the petitioners by reporting for duty in the promoted post on 23-11-1992. This reasoning under the impugned order dated 9-7-1998 is factually incorrect and the same is contrary to the Government Order dated 18-3-1996. The respondents failed to take into consideration the promotion of petitioners as Senior Field Assistants vide order dated 9-10-1992 and the acceptance of the same by the petitioners by reporting for duty in the promoted post on 23-11-1992. Further the respondents failed to take into consideration clause (4) of the Government Order dated 18-3-1996. Therefore, the impugned order dated 9-7-1998 is liable to be quashed. 7. The respondents under the impugned endorsement dated 2-7-1999 rejected the claim of the petitioners for grant of stagnation increment on the ground that they have cancelled the earlier grant of first stagnation increment and therefore they are not entitled for further grant of stagnation increments. This reasoning of the respondent in denying the claim of the petitioners is again contrary to the terms of the Government Order dated 18-3-1996. As already pointed out, the withdrawal of first stagnation increment is illegal. Consequently, the impugned endorsement dated 2-7-1999 is also liable to be quashed. 8. For the reasons stated above, the following ORDER I. The writ petition is allowed. II. The impugned order dated 9-7-1998 Annexure M and the endorsement dated 2-7-1999 Annexure O are hereby quashed. III. The respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of the observations made in this order for grant of stagnation increments within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. IV. Ordered accordingly with no order as to costs. 9. Petition allowed.