By The Court—Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The delay in filing the special appeals is condoned. 3. These special appeals have been filed by the Commissioner-cum-Administrator, Sharda Sahayak Command Area Development. 4. Sri D.K. Upadhyaya appearing for the appellants, assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge, submitted that the claim of the respondents (petitioners to the writ petition), who are working as Draughtsmen under the Project Administrator, Sharda Sahayak Command, Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow, for promotional pay scale of Rs. 8000 - 13500 on completion of 24 years of services has been accepted only on the ground that by the government order dated 25.9.02, the said benefit was extended to the Draughtsmen after modifying the government order dated 26.2.98 and since the said government order of 25.9.02 has not been revoked or rescinded, therefore, they are binding upon the Administrator, Sharda Sahayak Comand Area Development, as also on the other authorities. 5. In short, the controversy was regarding promotional pay scale being given to the Draughtsmen working in the aforesaid project, like other Draughtsmen working almost in all other departments, for which government order dated 26.2.98 was issued. 6. However, the respondents and like Draughtsmen of the project were denied the benefit of the promotional pay scale aforesaid. 7. Writ petitions were filed in which interim orders were passed for considering the case of the respondents and like Draughtsmen for award of the aforesaid promotional pay scale and it appears that in pursuance thereof, a government order was issued on 25.9.02, modifying the government order dated 26.2.98 and thus, providing the same benefit to the respondents and like Draughtsmen. 8. Since despite the aforesaid government order being issued on 25.9.02 entitling the respondents to have the benefit of the promotional pay scale after having put in 24 years of service the same was not actually extended to them, they preferred the present writ petitions for compliance of the aforesaid government order dated 25.9.02. 9. The learned Single Judge after being satisfied that the government order dated 25.9.02 was in vogue and the same has not been revoked or rescinded, issued necessary direction and allowed the writ petitions. 10. 9. The learned Single Judge after being satisfied that the government order dated 25.9.02 was in vogue and the same has not been revoked or rescinded, issued necessary direction and allowed the writ petitions. 10. Before us, it has been brought to our notice that, in fact, the government order dated 25.9.02 was revoked by government order dated 25.9.04 and this revocation order was on record of the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge. 11. In the additional counter affidavit, in which this order was filed as an annexure, another document, namely, D.O. letter dated 16.4.04 was also filed, saying that the reason for cancellation of the aforesaid order was not taking of clearance from the finance department. 12. The aforesaid facts reveal that the learned Single Judge was not informed about the fact of revocation/cancellation of the government order dated 25.9.02, compliance of which was asked for, by the respondents. 13. Once the aforesaid government order stood revoked/cancelled, there was no occasion for the respondents to claim any compliance of such an order. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents, at this juncture, submitted that even otherwise the respondents were entitled to the benefit of promotional pay scale and that the order of cancellation was passed under the teeth of the proceedings pending before the High Court and, therefore, passing of such an order would not deprive the respondents of having benefit of the promotional pay scale. 15. Sri D.K. Upadhyaya, in response, submitted that no such foundation has been laid down in the writ petitions nor in the present special appeals and it is general principle in the State that where there is no channel of promotion and there is stagnation in the service career, such an incumbent is given the next pay scale and is not given the promotional pay scale, in case actual promotions could not be made. 16. We do not intend to enter into these controversies for the reason that the learned Single Judge has based his order only on a misconception that the government order dated 25.9.02 is in force and has not been revoked, whereas the factual position is otherwise. 17. That being so, we set aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and remit the matter to the learned Single Judge, having jurisdiction, for deciding it afresh, in accordance with law. 18. 17. That being so, we set aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and remit the matter to the learned Single Judge, having jurisdiction, for deciding it afresh, in accordance with law. 18. It is open to the parties to raise all such pleas before the learned Single Judge, as may be available to them. 19. The special appeals are allowed. Costs easy. (Special alleals allowed) _____________