Hon'ble VYAS, J.—This judgment will dispose of all the above writ petitions filed by respective petitioners. 2. As per facts of the case, all the writ petitioners were appointed by the Advocate on Record for State of Rajasthan appointed by the State Government in the Supreme Court. The appointments were made against existing vacant posts of Stenographer and Lower Division Clerk and the Advocate of Record was permitted to appoint Stenographers and Lower Division Clerks with the consent of Finance Department vide order dated 25.5.1994 and order dated 25.5.1995 passed by the Department of Law & Legal Affairs, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. All the appointments were made by the Advocate on Record appointed by the State Government in New Delhi against the posts lying vacant in the said office. All the petitioners were provided appointment on the posts of Stenographer and Lower Division Clerk and their detail is as follows: S.No. Name & Father's Name Name of Post & Date of Appointment Date of Abolition of the Post 1. Ashok Kumar S/o Pal Chand L.D.C. 3.2.1999 8.7.2002 2. Rakesh Kumar S/o Ram Pal L.D.C. 20.10.1994 8.7.2002 3. Surendra Singh S/o Balbeer Singh L.D.C. 17.2.1996 8.7.2002 4. Ravi Dutt S/o Dharamdas L.D.C. 20.10.1994 8.7.2002 5. Narendra Rana S/o Raja Ram L.D.C. 1.6.1994 8.7.2002 6. Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o K.R. Sharma L.D.C. 1.6.1994 8.7.2002 7. Rameshwar Dutt S/o Brij Lal Steno 20.10.1994 8.7.2002 4. All the petitioners were appointed by the Advocate on Record after due authorisation of the State Government on their respective posts on contractual basis till the posts are filled in by regular appointments or till further orders, on the posts of Lower Division Clerk and Stenographer. 5. All the petitioners preferred different writ petitions for regularization of their services before the Delhi High Court. The High Court of Delhi passed interim order on 15.3.2002 whereby it is ordered that no direction can be issued to the State Government for regularization of the services in favour of the petitioners. However, it is left open in terms of the scheme of the State for the petitioners to approach the Review Committee for regularization of their services if he successfully agitates the same. 6. However, it is left open in terms of the scheme of the State for the petitioners to approach the Review Committee for regularization of their services if he successfully agitates the same. 6. In pursuance of the above directions, all the petitioners filed their representations for regularization before the Review Committee which is constituted under Section 12 of the Rajasthan (Regularization of appointment to Public Services & Rationalization of Staff) Act, 1999. The representations filed by the petitioners before the Review Committee constituted under Section 12 were rejected vide order dated 23.5.2002 which is placed on record by all the petitioners in their respective writ petition. 7. The writ petitioners filed at the High Court of Delhi were listed in the Court for final disposal on 10.7.2002. On that date, it is apprised by Shri Anil Kumar, counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan that representations filed by the petitioners have been rejected by the Committee, so also, as per the recommendations made by the Review Committee, 2 posts of Stenographer and 3 posts of L.D.C. have been abolished vide notification of the Government of Rajasthan issued on 8.7.2002. The High Court of Delhi rendered final judgment on 10.7.2002 and disposed of all the writ petitions with the observation that the posts have been abolished during the pendency of the writ petitions, therefore, it shall be open for the petitioners to take appropriate steps to challenge the order of abolition of posts. Learned Judge passed order and issued direction to the Government of Rajasthan to pay minimum scale of pay which is paid to the regular employees for the work done by the petitioners for the period for which payment has not been made at the said rate. The petitioner have placed on record copy of the said judgment in all these writ petitions. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order of abolition of posts dated 8.7.2002 passed by the State Government and further prayed to quash the order passed by the Review Committee dated 23.5.2005 whereby the representations filed by the petitioners were rejected for regularization of their services. 8. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order of abolition of posts dated 8.7.2002 passed by the State Government and further prayed to quash the order passed by the Review Committee dated 23.5.2005 whereby the representations filed by the petitioners were rejected for regularization of their services. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that all the petitioners were provided appointment on the posts of Stenographer and L.D.C. by the Advocate on Record after due sanction issued by the Finance Department against the posts lying in the office of the Advocate on Record of the Government of Rajasthan in the Supreme Court. The petitioners were provided appointment on consolidated salary of Rs. 2,500/- for Stenographer and Rs. 2000/- per month for the L.D.C. Although the appointment were made on contractual basis till duly selected candidates are made available as per terms and conditions but, it is admitted position of the case that the posts upon which the petitioners were provided appointment were lying vacant in the office. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that there is no material on record to show that the review committee constituted under Section 12 of the Act of 1999 made a recommendation to abolish the posts. So also, there is no jurisdiction left with the Committee to recommend abolition of the posts. But, without any reason, the impugned order of abolition of posts dated 8.7.2002 was passed only to dislodge the petitioners from the posts. Therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that although the Advocate on Record at Delhi recommended their case for regularization and grant of increment but no proposal and suggestion sent by the Advocate on Record was taken into consideration and 3 posts of L.D.C. and 2 posts of Steno were abolished. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention towards Section 12 of the Act of 1999 and submit that nothing is provided in Section 12 of the Act to give any right to the Review Committee to make recommendation for abolition of the posts, therefore, the order dated 8.7.2002 is totally illegal and contrary to Section 12 of the Act of 1999. 11. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in the Supreme Court large number of cases against the State of Rajasthan are pending and regularly filed, in which, the services of the petitioners who are working as Steno-grapher/L.D.C. are required, therefore, the Advocate on record of the Supreme Court was authorized to appoint the petitioners on the posts lying vacant and as such it is not in dispute that the vacancies upon which the petitioners were appointed were available in the office of the Advocate on Record at New Delhi. But, now, in pursuance of the order passed for abolition of the posts the Advocate on record has passed order for relieving the petitioners. 12. It is submitted that in this petition, the petitioners are challenging the impugned order dated 8.7.2002 which is totally against the principles of natural justice because after serving for number of years order was passed for abolition of the posts in the garb of Section 12 of the Act of 1999 which is arbitrary action of the State of Rajasthan, therefore, the order impugned dated 8.7.2002 deserves to be quashed and consequential order of relieving the petitioners passed by the Advocate on Record may also be set aside with further direction to regularize the services of the petitioners because they are serving under the stay orders passed by this Court in these writ petitions. 13. Per contra, Addl. Advocate General Mr. R.P. Singh, appearing on behalf of the State submits that admittedly the petitioners were provided appointment on contractual basis against vacant posts by the Advocate on Record. In the appointment order, specific condition is incorporated that candidates will be allowed to work till duly selected candidates are made available; meaning thereby, the appointments were made on contract basis and after promulgation of the Act by the State Government the Review Committee was constituted under Section 12 of the Act to review the existing staff pattern in any office or establishment employing persons belong to any public service keeping in view the workload of such office or establishment and also, for remuneration. The State Government appointed Review Committee and the Review Committee made recommendation on 1.7.2002 whereby it is recommended that 2 posts of Stenographer and 3 posts of L.D.C. may be abolished and, further, the Committee recommended that adequate office maintenance allowance should be provided to both the Advocates on Record so that they can make their own arrangement of staff as well as other office assistance. Therefore, it cannot be said that action of the State Government in abolishing the said posts is illegal. The petitioners cannot be permitted to raise voice against abolition of the posts and to claim regularization on the posts on which they were appointed on contract basis. The prayer of the petitioners was thoroughly considered by the Review Committed while deciding their representation and, after taking into consideration entire facts, representation of the petitioners was rejected on 23.5.2002, therefore, no case is made out for interference and as such all these writ petitions may be dismissed. 14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the perused the entire record of the case and found that Advocate on Record was authorised to appoint L.D.Cs. and Stenographers with approval of the Finance Department vide orders dated 25.5.1994 and 25.5.1995 and, after authorization, all the petitioners were appointed on their respective posts of L.D.C. and Stenographer. 15. First of all, it is worthwhile to observed that vide impugned order dated 8.7.2002, 3 posts of L.D.C. and 2 posts of Stenographer were abolished whereas services of 7 petitioners have been dispensed with, out of which, petitioners Ravi Dutt and Narendra Kumar Rana are Stenographers. The reason for abolition of the posts and relieving all the petitioners by the Advocate on record is that the representation of the petitioners for regularization was rejected and the Review Committee made recommendation for abolition of 5 posts, out of which, 2 posts are of Stenographer and 3 posts are of Lower Division Clerk. 16. Section 12 of the Act of 1999 under which Review Committee was constituted reads as under: "12. Review Committees.-(1) After the date of commencement of this Act, the State Government may constitute a Review committee with an officer not below the rank of a Secretary to the government as the Chairperson and such number of members of such rank as it may deem fit to review. Review Committees.-(1) After the date of commencement of this Act, the State Government may constitute a Review committee with an officer not below the rank of a Secretary to the government as the Chairperson and such number of members of such rank as it may deem fit to review. (a) the existing staff pattern in any office or establishment employing persons belonging to any public service keeping in view the workload of such office or establishment; and (b) the pay scales, allowances, ex gratia payments, bonus; pension, gratuity and other terminal benefits and perquisites applicable to the post belonging to any public service of such office or establishment keeping in view the qualifications and job requirements of each such post. (2) After undertaking review under sub-section (1), the Review Committee shall submit a report alongwith its recommendations to the State Government for such action as may be prescribed by rules made in this behalf. (3) The Review Committee shall regulate its own procedure for discharing the functions under this section. (4) All orders and decisions of the review Committee shall be authenticated by the chairperson or a member authorities by him in this behalf. Explanation-For the purpose of this section, Secretary to the govt. includes a Principal Secretary or Special Secretary to the government." 17. The said order of recommendation has been filed in the reply to the writ petition on behalf of the respondents which is Annex. R/2 filed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7084/2002 which is as follows: "Government of Rajasthan Finance Department Present: M.D. Kaurani, IAS, Principal Secretary, Finance. Bhanwaroo Khan RHJS, Secretary, Law. Regarding Regulation/Abolishment of 5 posts of Ministerial Staff sanctioned for the office of Advocate on Record (AORs) at Bikaner House, New Delhi 1. This Review Committee has been constituted under the Rajasthan (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff) Act, 1999. 2. Directorate of Litigation in Law Department had, vide order No. F.9(4) Raj/Vad/88 dated 25.4.1992 and order dated 12.8.1993, sanctioned following posts for the office of AORs at New Delhi: 1. Stenographer 1 2. LDCs 3 3. Peon 1 One more post of Stenographer was also sanctioned subsequently but at present in all there are six posts for the office of AORs at New Delhi. 1. Stenographer : Rs. 2500 per month. 2. LDC : Rs. 2000 per month. 3. Peon: Rs. 1500 per month. 4. Stenographer 1 2. LDCs 3 3. Peon 1 One more post of Stenographer was also sanctioned subsequently but at present in all there are six posts for the office of AORs at New Delhi. 1. Stenographer : Rs. 2500 per month. 2. LDC : Rs. 2000 per month. 3. Peon: Rs. 1500 per month. 4. Against the above posts, services of following persons were hired by AORs on contract basis: 1. Shri Rakesh Kumar, Stenographer 2. Shri Narendra Kumar, LDC 3. Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, LDC 4. Shri Ashok Kumar, LDC 4. Shri Surendra Singh, LDC Shri Ravi (6th person) was also hired on contract basis by the then AOR. 5. At present, litigation work of the State Government in the Supreme Court has been divided between 2 AORS- one for principal seat at Jodhpur and the other for Jaipur seat of the Rajasthan High Court. Therefore, both the AORs require separate personal staff. AORs, during various discussions, have revealed that regular staff provided by the State Government will not serve their requirement as their working hours are broken and long. The staff, provided by the State Government, used to work between 10 AM and 5 PM will not fulfil their requirement. Their staff has to be available in morning, evening as well as go with them to the Court and also at their residence on holidays. As such they would like to keep their own staff on their own terms and conditions and Government should facilitate this by way of reimbursement or by providing allowance. That is why, against the sanctioned posts also they had been keeping contractual staff instead of regular employees. 6. In view of above, the Review Committee recommends to abolish two posts of Stenographer and three posts of LDC. One regular post of Peon need not to be abolished because one Peon will be required to keep the offices of AIRs open during working hours 10 A.M. to 5 P.M. so that OICs may come and contact in the office during above hours. The Committee also recommends that adequate office maintenance allowance should be provided to both the AORs so that they can make their own arrangement of staff as well as other office assistance. 7. In view of the above recommendations, the concerned Department may pass necessary orders. The Committee also recommends that adequate office maintenance allowance should be provided to both the AORs so that they can make their own arrangement of staff as well as other office assistance. 7. In view of the above recommendations, the concerned Department may pass necessary orders. Sd/- Sd/- Secretary, Law Principal Secretary, Finance" The said order dated 8.7.2002 reads as follows: ^^jktLFkku ljdkj fof/k ,oa fof/kd dk;Z foHkkx ¼jktdh; okndj.k½ Øekad % i 9¼4½ jkt@okn@88 ikVZ I t;iqj] 8-7-2002 ^^vkns'k** jsIlkj ¼yksd lsokvksa esa fu;qfDr;ksa dk fofu;eu vkSj LVkQ dk lqO;ofLFkdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1999 dh /kkjk 12 ds vuqlj.k esa xfBr fjO;w desVh dh vfHk'kalk ij ,MoksdsV vku fjdkMZ ubZ fnYyh ds dk;kZy; esa Lohd`r fuEufyf[kr fu;fer in rqjUr izHkko ls lekIr djus dh Lohd`fr ,rn}kjk iznku dh tkrh gS& 1- 'kh?kzfyfid 2 in 2- dfu"B fyfid 3 in mDr vkns'k foRr ¼O;; 2½ foHkkx }kjk izkIr lgefr mudh vkbZ-Mh- la[;k 2696 fnukad 8-7-2002 ds Øe esa tkjh fd;s tkrs gSaA vkKk ls] la;qDr fof/k ijke'khZ ,oa vfr- funs'kd ¼jktdh; okndj.k½** 18. I have examined entire case in the light of Section 12 of the Act of 199 and recommendation of the Review Committee dated 1.7.2002, upon which, the order of abolition dated 8.7.2002 was passed by the State Government. 19. Upon perusal of Section 12 of the Act, it will reveal that there is no specific provision to make recommendation for abolition of post. The only power given to the Review Committee is to review existing staff pattern in any office or establishment employeeing persons belong to any public service keeping in view the workload of such office or establishment and the pay scales, allowances, ex gratia payments, bonus, pension, gratuity and other terminal benefits and perquisites applicable to the posts belonging to any public service of such office or establishment keeping in view the qualification and job requirement of each such post. It is also not made mandatory for the State Government to pass an order as per recommendation made by the Review Committee. Therefore, after recommendation made by the Review Committee it was always open for the State Government to consider the recommendation in the right perspective. 20. It is also not made mandatory for the State Government to pass an order as per recommendation made by the Review Committee. Therefore, after recommendation made by the Review Committee it was always open for the State Government to consider the recommendation in the right perspective. 20. Here, in this case, upon perusal of the recommendation made by the Review Committee dated 1.7.2002 it will reveal that at the relevant time the work of the State Government in the Supreme Court was divided between two Advocates on Record-one for the Principal Seat of the High Court at Jodhpur and, another for the Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. Therefore, both the Advocates on record require separate personal staff. It is nowhere stated that the posts sanctioned for those offices are excessive or there is no work available in the office; but, the only observation is made that for workload if Advocates on record would like to keep their own staff on their own terms and conditions and Government may facilitate this by way of reimbursement or by providing allowances applicable against the sanctioned posts. The reasons mentioned in the recommendation made by the Review Committee are totally unjust and not based upon true spirit of Section 12of the Act of 1999. 21. The Review Committee was under obligation to keep in mind the workload of such office or establishment. Admittedly, it is observed in the recommendation by the Review Committee that there is workload and posts are lying vacant but observed that the Advocates on Record can keep their own staff on their own terms and conditions; meaning thereby, the recommendations made by the Review Committee was totally contract to true spirit of Section 12 in which duty was cast upon the Review Committee to keep in view the workload of such office or establishment. Therefore, the reasons in the recommendation letter dated 1.7.2002 by the Review Committee for abolition of the posts were based on totally wrong premises and against the spirit of Section 12(a) of the Act of 1999, under which, the Review Committee was constituted. 22. Therefore, the reasons in the recommendation letter dated 1.7.2002 by the Review Committee for abolition of the posts were based on totally wrong premises and against the spirit of Section 12(a) of the Act of 1999, under which, the Review Committee was constituted. 22. It is admitted position of the case that the Review Committee has failed to make proper recommendation on the basis of the workload as per Section 12(a) of the Act but has tried to make recommendation to substantiate their order of rejection upon representation of the petitioners passed by them on 23.5.2002 whereby the prayer of regularization of the services of petitioners was rejected. It is very strange that the representation of the petitioners was rejected by the Review Committee on 23.5.2002. Thereafter, another meeting was conducted and recommendations were made for abolition of the posts on 1.7.2002; meaning thereby, somehow the Review Committee was adamant to remove the petitioners from service knowing it well that workload was in existence and posts were lying vacant on which the petitioners were provided appointment on contract basis. 23. It is also very strange that the Advocate on record did not pass any order of termination but has passed order for relieving the petitioners in pursuance of the abolition of the posts; meaning thereby, the petitioners who were working against the said posts were dislodged from the posts in pursuance of abolition of posts vide order dated 8.7.2002 which is totally arbitrary and illegal action of the respondents. 24. In my opinion, for terminating the services of even temporary employee in the event of abolition of posts it is expected of the respondents to give notice and apprise the employees why their services are liable to be terminated on abolition of the posts; but, no such notice was given prior to passing order of relieving, so also, no such order has been passed prior to termination of the services of the petitioners. 25. On the basis of above discussion, it is apparently clear that the reasons for abolition of the posts are totally untenable and against the basic principles of law and, so also, contrary to the true spirit of Section 12(a) of the Act of 1999. 25. On the basis of above discussion, it is apparently clear that the reasons for abolition of the posts are totally untenable and against the basic principles of law and, so also, contrary to the true spirit of Section 12(a) of the Act of 1999. All the parameters for review of existing staff pattern were ignored by the Review Committee and , in very casual manner, the Committee recommended for abolition of the posts while observing in the recommendation letter that there is work in existence which is performed by the petitioners on contract basis but it is recommended that now the Advocates on Record may keep their own staff on their own terms and conditions and the Government should facilitate this by way of reimbursement or by providing allowances. 26. In my opinion, aforesaid recommendation made by the Review Committee is totally unjust and against the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India because the day on which the review committee examined the existing staff pattern of the office of the Advocate on Record that the work load was in existence in the office which is performed by the petitioners while working against the vacant posts. 27. In this view of the matter, the order dated 8.7.2002 passed by the State Government for abolition of posts impugned in all the above writ petitions is hereby quashed and set aside while holding that abolition of posts effected in pursuance of the recommendation of the Review Committee dated 1.7.2002 is contrary to the spirit of Section 12(a) of the Act of 1999. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to remain in service continuously. 28. In 6 writ petitions, stay orders are operating and the petitioners are continuing on their respective posts, therefore, their services shall not be discontinued. However, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 420/2003, the stay order was vacated on 5.5.2003, therefore, petitioner Narendra Kumar Rana is out of job. Hence, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 420/2003, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith, with further direction to grant all consequential benefits and the case of all the petitioners shall be considered for regularization in the light of para 53 of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Anr. vs. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , within a period of six months from the date of receiving certified copy of this order and pass appropriate order.