JUDGMENT : B.R. SARANGI, J. The petitioner was appointed in Orissa State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Bhubaneswar (OSCARD Bank) as contingent Junior Assistant on 11.06.1982 along with others. While continuing as such, the committee of the OSCARD Bank made a resolution on 10.09.1986 approving the earlier resolution dated 23.01.1986 to regularize the services of the contingent employees in their respective posts. But, the Chief Administrator of the committee offered his dissenting views, and consequentially the matter was referred to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Orissa for final decision. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Orissa in Revision Case No.30 of 1986 vide order dated 18.06.1988 directed the OSCARD Bank authorities to regularize the services of contingent employees, as stood on 23.01.1986, and to implement the resolution of the committee dated 23.01.1986. Subsequently, in another meeting of the Board held on 25.05.1987, same view was reiterated to regularize the services of the contingent employees within a period of two months from 20.06.1987. Pursuant to such resolution and finding of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Orissa, the OSCARD Bank regularized the services of 14 contingent employees out of 22. The remaining eight contingent employees, including the petitioner, filed Misc. Case before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Orissa, who directed the OSCARD Bank to regularize the services of the eight contingent employees considering their length of service on compassionate ground, by observing that it would not be fair to throw them out of their service. As per the finding of the Registrar, the petitioner was required to be regularized against the post of Junior Assistant, but the OSCARD Bank instead of regularizing the services of the petitioner as Junior Assistant, appointed him in the post of Junior Typist. 2. Aggrieved by such action of the OSCARD Bank, the petitioner approached the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhubaneswar in Title Suit No.13 of 1996, and after due adjudication, by order dated 10.03.1999, the court below directed opposite party no.1 to consider the case of the petitioner in the matter of regularization of service as against the post of Junior Assistant in compliance of the order dated 18.06.1988 of opposite party no.2 in Revision Case No.30 of 1986, giving retrospective effect, in letter and spirit. Consequentially, the petitioner’s services were regularized retrospectively w.e.f. 18.06.1988. The order dated 10.03.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Consequentially, the petitioner’s services were regularized retrospectively w.e.f. 18.06.1988. The order dated 10.03.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhubaneswar in Title Suit No.13 of 1996, having not been challenged before the higher forum, reached its finality. 3. As the petitioner was regularized as Junior Assistant w.e.f. 18.06.1988, his inter se seniority was fixed in the post of Junior Assistant below Smt. Sukanti Mishra, Jr. Asst. and above Sri Suresh Mohanty, Jr. Asst. The Board of Directors in its resolution dated 14.10.1999 notified the action taken by the President of the OSCARD Bank on the basis of the order of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhubaneswar, and subsequently vide order dated 23.04.2003, the petitioner was allowed to officiate the promotional post of Senior Assistant by fixing his inter se seniority between Smt. Sukanti Mishra, Sr. Asst. and Sri Suresh Chandra Mohanty, Sr. Asst. 4. Thereafter, one Madhusudan Pattnaik working as Jr. Asst. in the OSCARD Bank approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 5017 of 2003 challenging the action of opposite party no.1 for not considering his case for promotion. In the said writ petition, the petitioner was impleaded as opposite party no.3. This Court, after due adjudication of the writ petition, vide judgment dated 19.11.2004 quashed the portion of the order passed by the OSCARD Bank, by which the petitioner was regularized in the post of Jr. Asst. with retrospective effect, as well as his consequential officiating promotion as Sr. Asst., and further directed to re-fix his seniority at his own place from the date the order of regularization was passed, i.e., 16.09.1999. Consequentially, vide order no.401 dated 12.04.2005 the officiating promotion given to the employees of the OSCARD Bank including the petitioner in different grades was withdrawn from the date of issue of the order, and order no.403 dated 12.04.2005 was passed fixing the inter se seniority of the petitioner in the grade of Jr. Asst. below Sri Madhusudan Pattnaik, Jr. Asst. and Sri P.K. Sahani, Jr. Asst. with prospective effect from 16.09.1999. 5. Subsequently, the opposite party no.1 vide office order dated 10.06.2005, by misinterpreting the judgment of this Court, directed that in modification of the office order no.403 dated 12.04.2005, the office order no.4490 dated 16.09.1999 absorbing the petitioner as Jr. Asst. was quashed and the petitioner was reverted back to his former post as Jr. with prospective effect from 16.09.1999. 5. Subsequently, the opposite party no.1 vide office order dated 10.06.2005, by misinterpreting the judgment of this Court, directed that in modification of the office order no.403 dated 12.04.2005, the office order no.4490 dated 16.09.1999 absorbing the petitioner as Jr. Asst. was quashed and the petitioner was reverted back to his former post as Jr. Typist w.e.f. 16.09.1999 and his inter se seniority was fixed in the rank of Jr. Typist below Chittaranjan Panda, Jr. Typist, and that the inter se seniority of Sri Madhusudan Panda, Jr. Asst. was fixed below Sri Rabindranath Mohanty, Jr. Asst and above Sri Prafulla Kumar Sahani, Jr. Asst. Further, vide office order dated 11.06.2005 direction was given for recovery from the petitioner the officiating allowance already received by him for the period from 1.5.2003 to 12.04.2005, during which he was officiating in the post of Sr. Asst., in twenty equal instalments starting from June, 2005 and onwards. Aggrieved by the said order, this application has been filed. 6. Mr. Sanjib Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, having been appointed initially as Jr. Asst. and his services having been regularized pursuant to the order passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies in Revision Case No. 30 of 1986 dated 18.06.1988 and subsequent order passed on 10.03.1998 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhubaneswar in T.S. No. 13 of 1996 giving retrospective effect from 18.06.1988, the subsequent action taken by the authority reverting the petitioner from Jr. Asst. to Jr. Typist w.e.f. 16.09.1999 without complying the principles of natural justice is bad in law. He has further submitted that the consequential direction given for recovery of the officiating allowance already paid to the petitioner for the period from 01.05.2003 to 12.05.2005, pursuant to order dated 11.06.2005, cannot also sustain in the eye of law. As such, there is wrong interpretation of the judgment dated 19.11.2004 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5017 of 2004, by which this Court only quashed the portion of the order, i.e., regularization of the petitioner in the post of Jr. Asst. with retrospective effect and consequential promotion as reflected in the order of officiating promotion. It is contended that the petitioner accepted the judgment dated 19.11.2004 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5017 of 2003 and did not claim any retrospective regularization w.e.f. 18.06.1988, but absorption in service w.e.f. 16.09.1999 as Jr. Asst. with retrospective effect and consequential promotion as reflected in the order of officiating promotion. It is contended that the petitioner accepted the judgment dated 19.11.2004 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5017 of 2003 and did not claim any retrospective regularization w.e.f. 18.06.1988, but absorption in service w.e.f. 16.09.1999 as Jr. Asst. in the grade. So far as officiating promotion is concerned, it is contended that since the petitioner has accepted the benefit of regularization as Jr. Asst with prospective effect, i.e., from 16.09.1999, and that he was discharging duty in the officiating promotion post, the allowance, which was received by the petitioner for discharging higher responsibility, should not have been recovered from him. 7. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 strenuously justified the impugned orders passed by the authority concerned and contended that the petitioner was not entitled to get the benefit of promotional post of Sr. Asst. Therefore, any amount paid during officiating period has to be recovered from him. So far as reversion from the post of Jr. Asst. to Jr. Typist is concerned, it is contended that the same has been made in compliance of the judgment dated 19.11.2004 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5017 of 2003. Therefore, this Court should not interfere with the same at this stage. 8. Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has stated that the order dated 18.06.1988 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies in Revision Case No. 30 of 1986 is well within his competence and, as such, the same has to be implemented with letter and spirit. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the records, since pleadings between the parties have been exchanged, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 10. The undisputed fact being that the petitioner got his appointment by the OSCARD Bank on 11.06.1982 as contingent Jr. Asst. along with others pursuant to resolution passed by the committee of the OSCARD Bank dated 10.09.1986 approving the resolution dated 23.01.1986 with regard to regularization of services of contingent employees. 10. The undisputed fact being that the petitioner got his appointment by the OSCARD Bank on 11.06.1982 as contingent Jr. Asst. along with others pursuant to resolution passed by the committee of the OSCARD Bank dated 10.09.1986 approving the resolution dated 23.01.1986 with regard to regularization of services of contingent employees. The Chief Administrator of the committee having given dissenting views, the matter was placed before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and, as such, the Registrar in Revision Case No.30 of 1986 vide order dated 18.06.1988 directed the OSCARD Bank to regularize the services of contingent employees as stood on 23.01.1986. The relevant portion of the order of the Registrar Cooperative Societies dated 18.06.1988 is extracted below: “However, I would like to observe that in view of the length of service these 8 contingent employees have put in the service of the Bank. I think the management may consider their cases on the ground of compassion. But at the same time the compassion should not and cannot be mis-placed. The services of a contingent employee who does not posses the regular eligibility for being appointed for the post against which he has been appointed in the first instance should not be regularized against that post. In consideration the length of service of these contingent employees have put in, it would be fair if the management considers favourable their cases to regularize their services against such posts for which these contingent employees passes the eligibility at the time of their first appointment. Really, it is unfortunate that the Bank has appointed a number of persons on contingent basis ignoring even the minimum qualification of services of such contingent employees is not permissible but because of the length of service they have put in on the ground of compassion, it would not be fair to throw these employees out of service. The above order shall not be cited as a precedent in future.” 11. Pursuant to such order, the OSCARD Bank regularized the services of 14 contingent employees out of 22. But, eight employees, including the petitioner, filed a Misc. Case before the Registrar and thereafter the Registrar directed the OSCARD Bank to regularize the services of those contingent employees considering their length of service on compassionate ground. As per the finding of the Registrar, the services of the petitioner were required to be regularized as against the post of Jr. But, eight employees, including the petitioner, filed a Misc. Case before the Registrar and thereafter the Registrar directed the OSCARD Bank to regularize the services of those contingent employees considering their length of service on compassionate ground. As per the finding of the Registrar, the services of the petitioner were required to be regularized as against the post of Jr. Asst., but he was given appointment in the post of Jr. Typist, which the petitioner challenged by filing T.S. No. 13 of 1996 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhubaneswar. After due adjudication, learned Civil Judge passed order on 10.03.1999 directing opposite party no.1 to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as against the post of Jr. Asst. The relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhubaneswar is extracted below:- “That the suit is decreed in part on contest against the defendant, but in the circumstances without costs. The defendant is directed to reconsider the case of the plaintiff in the matter of regularization of his services as against the post of Junior Assistant in compliance with the order dated 18.06.1988 of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies in Revision Case No.30 of 1986 in letter and spirit within two months hence as per the observation made in the judgment.” In compliance of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhubaneswar on 10.03.1999, opposite party no.1 vide order dated 16.09.1999 absorbed the petitioner in the post of Jr. Asst. w.e.f. 18.06.1988 in the identical scale of pay of Rs.950-20-1150-EB-25-1500/-. Subsequently, the petitioner was allowed to officiate in the next higher post as per the inter se seniority and allowed to discharge his duty as Sr. Asst. vide office order dated 23.04.2003, wherein the name of the petitioner found place at serial no.23. Such officiating discharge of duty in a higher post by the petitioner was challenged by one Madhusudan Pattnaik, Jr. Asst. before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5017 of 2003. Asst. vide office order dated 23.04.2003, wherein the name of the petitioner found place at serial no.23. Such officiating discharge of duty in a higher post by the petitioner was challenged by one Madhusudan Pattnaik, Jr. Asst. before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5017 of 2003. In the said writ petition, the petitioner was made opposite party no.3, and after due adjudication, this Court vide judgment dated 19.11.2004, passed the following order:- “In that view of the matter, we quash that portion of the order of opposite party no.1 and 2 by which opposite party no.3 was regularized in the post of Junior Assistant with retrospective effect and his consequential promotion as in Annexures-13 and 14. Opposite party no.1 and 2 are therefore, directed to re-fix the seniority of opposite party no.3 vis-à-vis the petitioner and others and place him at his own place considering the seniority from the date the order of regularization was passed, i.e., 16.09.1999.” 12. In compliance of the said order of this Court, the retrospective regularization of services of the petitioner w.e.f. 18.06.1988 was modified and he was placed in the grade of Jr. Asst. below Sri Madhusudan Pattnaik, Jr. Asst. and Sri P.K. Sahani, Jr. Asst. with prospective effect from 16.09.1999. Thereafter, all on a sudden, vide order dated 10.06.2005, by misinterpreting the judgment of this Court dated 19.11.2004 in W.P.(C) No. 5017 of 2003, the petitioner, who was discharging the duty of Jr. Asst., was reverted back to his former post of Jr. Typist w.e.f. 16.09.1999 and his inter se seniority was also fixed in the rank of Jr. Typist below Sri Chittaranjan Panda, Jr. Typist, and also the inter se seniority of Sri Madhusudan Pattanaik, Jr. Asst., the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5017 of 2003 was fixed below Rabindranath Mohanty, Jr. Asst. and above Sri P.K. Sahani, Jr. Asst. Further, vide order dated 11.06.2005, direction was given for recovery of officiating allowance paid to the petitioner for holding the higher post for the period from 01.05.2003 to 12.04.2005. 13. In course of hearing, pursuant to a query made by this Court with regard to the claim of regularization with retrospective effect from 18.06.1988, learned counsel for the petitioner candidly stated that the petitioner does not claim the retrospective promotion as Jr. Asst. from 18.06.1988, rather he has accepted his absorption as Jr. Asst. prospectively w.e.f. 16.09.1999. 13. In course of hearing, pursuant to a query made by this Court with regard to the claim of regularization with retrospective effect from 18.06.1988, learned counsel for the petitioner candidly stated that the petitioner does not claim the retrospective promotion as Jr. Asst. from 18.06.1988, rather he has accepted his absorption as Jr. Asst. prospectively w.e.f. 16.09.1999. It is admitted that after regularization of services prospectively w.e.f. 16.09.1999, the entitlement of the petitioner was extended. 14. On perusal of the order impugned dated 10.06.2005 (Annexure-13) and consequential order dated 11.06.2005 (Annexure-14) for recovery the officiating allowance, it is apparent that the same were passed without complying the principles of natural justice, meaning thereby no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner for such reversion from the post of Jr. Asst. to Jr. Typist. The post of Jr. Asst. is a different cadre than that of Jr. Typist. If an employee is to be reverted back from one cadre to another, he has to be given opportunity of hearing and as such, the authority cannot revert the employee at its own will without complying the principles of natural justice and without following due procedure of law. On perusal of the order passed by the Registrar and the learned Civil Judge, as well as the judgment passed by this Court, nowhere it has been directed that the petitioner should be reverted back to the cadre of Jr. Typist from Jr. Asst., but on the other hand, the fact is very clear that the petitioner was initially appointed as contingent Jr. Asst. If the petitioner was appointed as Jr. Asst. originally, subsequently the same cannot be changed in any manner without following due procedure of law and, more particularly, without complying the principles of natural justice. 15. Natural justice, another name of which is common sense justice, is the name of those principles which constitute the minimum requirement of justice and without adherence to which justice would be a travesty. Natural justice accordingly stands for that fundamental quality of fairness which being adopted, justice may not only be done but also appears to be done. 16. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 , the apex Court countered natural justice with ‘fair play in action’. The soul of natural justice is ‘fair play in action’. 17. Natural justice accordingly stands for that fundamental quality of fairness which being adopted, justice may not only be done but also appears to be done. 16. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 , the apex Court countered natural justice with ‘fair play in action’. The soul of natural justice is ‘fair play in action’. 17. In Bhagwan v. Ramchand, AIR 1965 SC 1767 , the apex Court held that the rule of law demands that the power to determine questions affecting rights of citizens would impose the limitation that the power should be exercised in conformity with the principles of natural justice. 18. In Sukdev Singh v. Bhagatram, AIR 1975 SC 1331 , the apex Court held that whenever a man’s rights are affected by decisions taken under statutory powers, the court would presume the existence of a duty to observe the rules of natural justice. 19. In State of U.P. v. Vijay Kumar Tripathi, AIR 1995 SC 1130 , the apex Court held that it is important to note in this context the normal rule that whenever it is necessary to ensure against the failure of justice, the principles of natural justice must be read into a provision. Such a course is not permissible where the rule excludes expressly or by necessary intendment, the application of the principles of natural justice, but in that event, the validity of that rule may fall for consideration. 20. In Nagarjuna Construction Company v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 16 SCC 276 , the apex Court held that what is meant by the term ‘principles of natural justice’ is not easy to determine. Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice. 21. In Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 818 , the apex Court held that principles of natural justice are principles ingrained into the conscience of men. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice. 21. In Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 818 , the apex Court held that principles of natural justice are principles ingrained into the conscience of men. Justice being based substantially on natural ideals and human values, the administration of justice here is freed from the narrow and restricted considerations which are usually associated with a formulated law involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. Principles/rules of natural justice are not embodied principles/rules. Being means to an end and not an end in them, it is not possible to make an exhaustive catalogue of such rules (principles). The principles of natural justice operate as checks on the freedom of administrative action. The observance thereof is the pragmatic requirement of fair play in action. 22. Applying the principles laid down by the apex Court, as discussed above, to the present context, nothing has been elucidated that, while reverting the petitioner from the cadre of Jr. Asst. to Jr. Typist by the order impugned dated 10.06.2005, minimum requirement of law of principles of natural justice was followed. The entire administrative action suffers from fair play in action. Subsequently, recovery of amount as directed vide order dated 11.06.2005 cannot sustain, in view of the fact that the petitioner, having discharged the duty in the responsible higher post, is entitled to officiating allowance. While entertaining this application, this Court vide order dated 27.09.2005 granted stay of recovery of the amount in question. 23. In view of such position, the order dated 10.06.2005 reverting the petitioner from the cadre of Jr. Asst. to Jr. Typist, as well as the order dated 11.06.2005 for recovery of the officiating allowance for the period from 01.05.2003 to 12.04.2005 suffers from vice of non-compliance of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the same, being not sustainable in the eye of law, deserve to be quashed and are hereby quashed. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore, the same, being not sustainable in the eye of law, deserve to be quashed and are hereby quashed. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Considering the same, this Court having quashed the orders dated 10.06.2005 and 11.06.2005 under Annexures-13 and 14 respectively, consequential benefits, as due and admissible to the petitioner, should be granted to him including the financial benefits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of passing of this order. 25. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order to cost.