Judgment 1. In this Letters Patent Appeal the challenge is against the order of the learned Single Judge, recorded, on 1.2.2006, in C.W.J.C. No. 13918 of 2004, whereby, it came to be declared that the original writ petitioner, respondent herein, has acquired the status of Overseer/Junior Engineer with effect from 9.11.1969 and shall continue to hold such status. It is further held that in the event, anyone junior to the petitioner has been granted promotion, the case of promotion of the petitioner should be considered within a period of one month from the date of order with a further direction that the petitioner shall be given such promotion with all financial benefits from the date his junior was promoted. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. We have examined the facts and circumstances, as well as, the materials on record. The following aspects are no longer in dispute: (1) The respondent, original writ petitioner came to be appointed as overseer in 1961 and later on reverted to the post of Sub-overseer. (2) Thereafter, he came to be promoted to the post of Overseer on 19.11.1969. (3) From 1969 to 1989, four gradation lists were, also, prepared by the department wherein it was shown that the petitioner became an Overseer with effect from 19.11.1969. (4) Of course, there is no dispute about the fact that the post of Overseer was given a different nomenclature as Junior Engineer and due to conversion of the post from Overseer to Junior Engineer in those gradation lists, the name of the petitioner was shown to be a Junior Engineer. 3. Subsequently, the authority woke up from the slumber. Therefore, the original writ petitioner had knocked the doors of justice of this Court wherein he succeeded and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 4. It is not a case that the original petitioner, misled or played fraud. The challenge against the gradation list came to be made a few years before the retirement of the petitioner in the year 1991. 5. 4. It is not a case that the original petitioner, misled or played fraud. The challenge against the gradation list came to be made a few years before the retirement of the petitioner in the year 1991. 5. Let it be mentioned that if by mistake a master gives promotion or some monetary benefits to the employee without his involvement or without he being a privy to that and after two decades spell of time just near the superannuation was round the corner, the challenge to his status and position in the gradation list is made, the master is obliged to give an opportunity of hearing to the concerned employee before doing that so that he could submit his own case. No person can be put to any civil or evil consequences without giving him an opportunity of hearing. Nothing has been done in this case about which there is no dispute. 6. In these set of facts, which remains in this case is that the direction given by the learned Single Judge requires to be upheld while dismissing this Letters Patent Appeal after hearing learned counsels appearing for the parties. 7. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal shall stand dismissed.