Judgment ( 1. ) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs: (i) The Honble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus to respondent No. 1 and 2 to correct the gradation list as per the direction of the Honble Court and place the petitioner above respondent No. 3. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus to respondent No. 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner for the post of Revenue Sub Inspector in accordance with Rules. (iii) To grant any other relief fit in the circumstances and costs of petition. ( 2. ) THE contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the action of respondents No. 1 and 2 regularising him w. e. f. 6/1/1989 vide Annexure-R/1 is arbitrary in nature and runs contrary to the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court in the earlier round of litigation M. P. No. 3770/1985 (Rajendra Singh v. Chief Municipal Officer, Baikunthpur and Ors.) decided on 29th October, 1988. ( 3. ) ON the other hand, Shri Shukla, learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2, submits that after the decision of Division Bench of this Court, the petitioners services were regularised vide Annexure-R/1 dated 30/7/1996 w. e. f. 6/1/1989 by taking into consideration the direction given by this Court, therefore, the action of respondents cannot be said to be faulty. ( 4. ) AFTER having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. ( 5. ) THE unfolded facts are that without prior approval of the post of Moharir, the petitioner was appointed on the said post. Later on, since there was no approval, respondent No. 1 terminated the services of the petitioner. However, at the same time, six posts of Moharir were sanctioned when the order of termination order was issued to him. The petitioner assailed the order of termination before this Court and this Court vide its decision dated 29/10/1988 quashed the termination order and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Moharir. It was further directed that the steps be taken within two months from the date of the decision to regularise the petitioner as Moharir. in the service of the respondent No. 1. It was further directed that the steps be taken within two months from the date of the decision to regularise the petitioner as Moharir. in the service of the respondent No. 1. Though this Court observed that it is the wisdom of respondent No. 1 if the petitioner is not found fit to be retained in service, necessary order in that regard be passed. But, it is equally true that respondent No. 1 did find fit to regularise the services of the petitioner. Since the services of the petitioner were earlier terminated on the ground of prior approval of the post of Moharir was not obtained from the State Government, but thereafter six posts of Moharir were sanctioned and, therefore, the Division Bench of this Court directed the respondents to reinstate the services of the petitioner. The Division Bench of this Court also directed to regularise the services of the petitioner. Therefore, it would mean that the services of the petitioner should be regularised from the date when he was terminated from his service because after the quashment of termination order, the petitioner would be kept in the same position on the date when his services were terminated. Thus, it would mean the petitioner was serving on the post of Moharir on 6/6/1983 and, therefore, he is entitled for regularisation with effect from this date and if that is the position, the gradation list should be modified accordingly by placing the petitioner above respondent No. 3 with all consequential benefits. ( 6. ) THIS petition is, accordingly, allowed with no order as to costs.