ORDER : Sudesh Bansal, J. - Heard counsel for parties at length, scanned the material available on record as also the record of writ petition No.3669/1997 (Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan decided on 3-8-1999, the Judgment of Division Bench dated 23-4- 2008 in DB Special Appeal No.1051/2000 filed by the State against the judgment dated 3-8-1999, as both files are tagged with the present writ petition. 2. By way of instant writ petition, instituted way back on 15-6-1999, while challenging the order of termination dated 13-4-1999 (Ann.9) of the petitioner with immediate effect, the petitione, a Beldar, has come with a specific case that he was a daily wager employee in Irrigation department posted at Kukas Bandh, however, his services along with other daily wage employees were ended and they were ordered to be removed from service verbally. The union i.e. "The Jaipur Division Irrigation Employees Union", preferred a writ petition before the High Court against the illegal retrenchment, but the High Court did not grant any relief, then the Union preferred Special Leave Petition No.1369/1989 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vide order dated 5-12-1995 allowed SLP and directed respondents to extend benefits to appellants as granted in case of Mohan Singh [1995 Supp(2) SCC 153]. Copy of the order dated 5-12-1995 in SLP No.1369/1989 has been placed on record as Annexure-R/4/1. 3. The case of petitioner is that along with the SLP, the Union enclosed a list of as many as 57 workmen, who were members of the Union and for whom behalf the Union had preferred the SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in whose favour the order dated 5-12-1995 was passed for reinstatement. As per the petitioner, his name finds place at Serial No.55, and therefore, in compliance of order dated 5- 12-1995 the petitioner was reinstated as Beldar and posted at Ramgarh project vide order dated 25-5-1996 and 18-6- 1996. Copies of orders are placed on record as Annexure- 7&8. The petitioner's name was at Sr.No.55 of the list enclosed with the SLP, was identified, verified and recognized by the then President of the Union. The application of petitioner dated 3-1-1996, seeking his reinstatement in compliance of the order dated 5-12-1995, and his verification by the President of the Union, being the petitioner's name at Sr.No.55 of the list enclosed with the SLP, are available on record as Annexure-5&6. The application of petitioner dated 3-1-1996, seeking his reinstatement in compliance of the order dated 5-12-1995, and his verification by the President of the Union, being the petitioner's name at Sr.No.55 of the list enclosed with the SLP, are available on record as Annexure-5&6. One another letter of the President of the Union dated 17-1-1996, identifying and recognizing the petitioner to be the same person as figured out at Sr.No.55 of the list enclosed with the SLP is also available on record as Annexure-R/3, which has been placed on record by respondent department. In addition, it may be noticed that one affidavit of petitioner dated 6-5-1996 has also been placed on record by respondents as Annexure-R/4, wherein the petitioner himself has stated that at Sr.No.55 of the list enclosed with the SLP his name has wrongly been mentioned as "Om Prakash", whereas his name is "Prakash". This affidavit has not been denied or refuted by the petitioner. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he was reinstated as Beldar and given the status of semi permanent as also provided the benefit of pay scale vide orders dated 25-5- 1996 and 18-6-1996 (Ann.7&8) in compliance of order dated 5-12-1995 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and he is the person as figured out at Sr.No.55 of the list enclosed with the SLP which has been identified and verified by the then President of the Union. However, suddenly the petitioner has been removed from service with immediate effect vide order dated 13-4-1999 (Ann.9) on the basis of an order dated 7-4- 1999 passed in writ petition No.3669/1997. In the termination order dated 13-4-1999 a specific note was made that the petitioner would be responsible of consequences of decision of writ petition No.3669/1997. Thus, by way of instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged his termination order dated 13-4-1999 and in para No.3 of the writ petition has pleaded that he enquired about proceedings of writ petition No.3669/1997, which are based on incorrect facts. However, it is to be noted that instead of seeking impleadment in that pending writ petition or challenging the order dated 7-4-1999 passed in writ petition No.3669/1997, which was admittedly pending at that point of time, the petitioner preferred instant separate writ petition merely on the ground that the termination order dated 13-4- 1999 has been passed without providing any sort of opportunity of hearing. The prayer was made to set aside the order dated 13-4-1999 and to direct respondents to reinstate the petitioner back in service with all consequential benefits. It is further to be observed that initially the Union was also made party in writ petition as respondent No.4, but the petitioner himself moved application for deletion of respondent No.4 and on the prayer of the petitioner the respondent N o.4 was deleted vide order dated 18-10-2013. 5. Respondents No.1 to 3, state authorities have filed reply to writ petition and clarified actual and factual aspect of the case in the manner that indeed the petitioner's name is "Prakash s/o Ram Dayal" who was not figured at Sr.No.55 of the list enclosed with the SLP. The person in fact at Sr.No.55 of the list enclosed with the SLP as mentioned was only "Om Prakash". The list of workers prepared by the Union enclosed with SLP has been placed on record as Ann.R/1. The petitioner was reinstated in service on the basis of his own application, and placing reliance upon the identification and verification done by the then president of the Union, but on investigation it transpired that the petitioner is an impostor, who is not the real workman figured out at Sr.No.55 in the list, and on the basis of wrong identification by the president of the Union, orders dated 25-5-1996 and 18-6-1996 were passed. Respondents have made it clear that the petitioner misleaded respondents and succeeded in obtaining orders dated 25-5-1996 and 18-6-1996 pursuant to order dated 5- 12-1995 in SLP. It has been pointed out that, thereafter, one person Om Prakash s/o Kailash Narayan Sharma filed one writ petition No.3669/1997 claiming that he is the real person whose name was figured at Sr.No.55 of the list enclosed with the SLP and he has not been reinstated despite the order of Supreme Court in his favour. 6. Since in writ petition No.3669/1997 a serious question in respect of identification of the person figured out at Sr.No.55 in the list enclosed with the SLP arose, this court vide order dated 16-7-1998 directed the DIG, Rajasthan to conduct an enquiry and to place on record the report. 6. Since in writ petition No.3669/1997 a serious question in respect of identification of the person figured out at Sr.No.55 in the list enclosed with the SLP arose, this court vide order dated 16-7-1998 directed the DIG, Rajasthan to conduct an enquiry and to place on record the report. Pursuant thereto detailed enquiry was conducted at the behest of the DIG and whereunder it came to be revealed that the petitioner is an impostor and his name was not mentioned at Sr.No.55 of the list enclosed with the SLP. The enquiry report has been placed on record as Ann.R/2. 7. It has been stated by respondents that after the enquiry conducted by the DIG, when this fact was noticed by the High court in order dated 7-4-1999 that the petitioner is an impostor, who obtained order of reinstatement fraudulently, then the petitioner was removed from service with immediate effect vide impugned order dated 13-4-1999. Thereafter the writ petition No.3669/1997 was finally decided on 3-8-1999 and removal of petitioner vide order dated 13-4-1999 was fortified by the High Court in the final order. It has been submitted that the petitioner is an impostor and the correct person at Sr.No.55 of the list enclosed with the SLP is Om Prakash s/o Kailash Narayan Sharma and the petitioner was wrongly reinstated on the basis of erroneous identification and verification by the then president of the union, therefore, his termination is justified and does not warrant any interference by this court, in this writ petition. 8. It is noteworthy to take note of the fact that the final order dated 3-8-1999 passed in writ petition No.3669/1997 was challenged by the State, by way of filing DB Civil Special Appeal No.1051/2000, to the extent of saddling the state also with cost, which was in fact imposed upon the president of the Union. The Division Bench vide order dated 23-4-2008, decided the special appeal after modifying the order dated 3- 8-1999 that only the president of the union shall be liable for payment of the cost. Orders dated 7-4-1999, 3-8-1999 passed in writ petition No.3669/1997 have attained finality. The enquiry report dated 16-7-1998 (Ann.R/2) has also attained finality as no challenge thereto has been made by the petitioner. 9. Orders dated 7-4-1999, 3-8-1999 passed in writ petition No.3669/1997 have attained finality. The enquiry report dated 16-7-1998 (Ann.R/2) has also attained finality as no challenge thereto has been made by the petitioner. 9. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to take note of the fact that on the writ petition coming up before this court, at interim stage vide order dated 18-6-1999 an interim order was passed in favour of petitioner and the operation of the impugned termination order dated 13-4-1999 was stayed and respondents were directed to continue the petitioner in service as he was working prior to passing the impugned termination order. Later on the interim order dated 18-6-1999 was confirmed, after hearing counsel for both parties vide order dated 12-11-1999. Thus, it appears that the petitioner has rendered services in terms of the interim order in his favour and by now he might have attained the age of superannuation. 10. Having adverted to entire factual matrix of the present case as also on scanning the record and after hearing rival submissions of counsel for both parties, this court finds that the petitioner has challenged his impugned termination order dated 13-4-1999, in the present writ petition, only on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was provided to him, but the petitioner himself admits in para No.3 of the writ petition that the impugned termination order dated 13-4- 1999 was passed in compliance of order dated 7-4-1999 passed in SBWP No.3669/1997. Further the impugned termination order itself contains the observation of the court in order dated 7-4-1999 that the petitioner will be responsible for consequences of decision of writ petition No.3669/1997. Thus it is an admitted case that the petitioner was well aware of proceedings of enquiry conducted by the DIG and comments of the High Court in order dated 7-4-1999, following which the petitioner was treated an impostor and he was terminated from service with immediate effect. 11. The petitioner preferred the present writ petition on 15- 6-1999 and as per record, it is not in dispute that at that point of time, the writ petition No.3669/1997 was pending in High Court, as the same has been finally decided on 3-8- 1999. 11. The petitioner preferred the present writ petition on 15- 6-1999 and as per record, it is not in dispute that at that point of time, the writ petition No.3669/1997 was pending in High Court, as the same has been finally decided on 3-8- 1999. The impugned order of termination dated 13-4-1999 itself contains the fact that the petitioner has been terminated pursuant to order dated 7-4-1999 passed in SBCWP No.3669/1997, which has been finally decided on 3- 8-1999, wherein it has been observed that the petitioner (in present writ petition) would be responsible for all consequences. The case of petitioner in the present writ petition as put forth could have been raised by him in writ petition No.3669/1997, which was pending at the relevant point of time, by moving appropriate application and the petitioner could have avail an opportunity to dispute the fact finding of the report of investigation conducted by the DIG and the observation of High court in respect of petitioner to treat him an impostor and not the real person at Sr.No.55 of the list and thus the petitioner, if was entitled to reinstate in service in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he could have seek remedy in the pending writ petition No.3669/1997. The same factual aspect which has been pleaded in present writ petition was already subject matter of the writ petition No.3669/1997 and enquiry on such factual aspect has attained finally with the decision of writ petition No.3669/1997 on 3-8-1999, which order has further been affirmed by the Division Bench vide order dated 23-4-2008 in DB Special Appeal No.1051/2000. For ready reference, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of orders dated 16-7-1998, 7-4-1999, 3-8-1999 as also of the enquiry report thus: 16-7-1998: "In the aforesaid circumstances, parties are agreed that the case may be referred to Dy. Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur to make investigation into the matter and submit the report immediately within a period of one month from the receipt of intimation from this court, to the fact whether the present petitioner was real employee working as Beldar at Kanota in the year 1987 or prior to that, or the person who has been given appointment was real or an impostor. The Department is directed to give full cooperation to the Investigating Agency in this regard and supply all documents whenever asked for. The Department is directed to give full cooperation to the Investigating Agency in this regard and supply all documents whenever asked for. The DIG Rajasthan, Jaipur shall depute competent person for making investigation and to submit the report, within one month positively." (Emphasis Supplied) 7-4-1999: "The enquiry report has been submitted to the effect that the petitioner was real Om Prakash, who has been deprived from appointment and in his place one Prakash, on the identification of President of Union based affidavit filed by such Prakash, was offered appointment. The parties agree that the petitioner is real Om Prakash. Despite the report having been submitted and Irrigation Department having come to know the report, it is surprising that the Department has not taken any action so far either to accommodate the petitioner, who is disabled person, or to remove the impostor. The case is being adjourned for further arguments of Mr. Bhandari only on the point as to why crimination should not be initiated against the officers of Irrigation Department; said Prakas, who imposed himself as impostor; and president of Union. In the meantime the Department, so desires and if so advised, is at liberty to take suitable action to undo the wrong done to petitioner. Case be listed on 21-4-99." (Emphasis Supplied) 3-8-1999: "The question arose before this court as to who was the real workman, who should have been offered the appointment as per the orders of the Court; whether the petitioner or the said Prakash s/o Ram Dayal. Definitely one of the said two persons was not the real workman. On the pleading of parties, it became clear that some wrong has been made either by Prakash or by the petitioner and the matter was referred to Dy. Inspector General of Police to make investigation into the matter and to submit his report to the effect that whether the present petitioner was real workman, who was working as Beldar at Kanota in the year 1987 or prior to that, or the person who had been given appointment was real or a impostor, who had been appointed as per order of Supreme Court on the identification of President of Union. The order was passed by this court on 16-7-1998. It was made clear that the impostor shall be proceeded with in accordance with law to face the consequences. The Dy. The order was passed by this court on 16-7-1998. It was made clear that the impostor shall be proceeded with in accordance with law to face the consequences. The Dy. Inspector General of Police submitted his report and it was the finding that the petitioner was the real workman and the said person Prakash s/o Ram Dayal had been wrongly given appointment and the reappointment should have been given to petitioner only. The report of the DIG Police has been placed on record. Faced with the situation, the department has now vide order dated 13-4-99 removed the said person Prakash s/o Ram Dayal from the service and has offered the appointment to petitioner vide letter No.2348-57 dated 13-4-99. Even though the grievance of the writ petitioner has been met with and he has been appointed after number of years, but the question which still remains to be determined as to why and under what circumstances and with what motivation the respondents had offered the appointment to Prakash s/o Ram Dayal, on the identification of President of the Union while depriving the real workman i.e. the petitioner. It goes without saying that the petitioner has been kept out of job for number of years and in his place the appointment has been given to some other person, by treating him wrongly to be the real workman. The wrong has been undone on 13-4-99, but that too when this court had ordered the DIG Police to make enquiry to the effect. The respondents in written statement have been denying the claim of petitioner. As a matter of fact, immediately when the petitioner had represented, it was the duty of respondents to have got the matter verified and should have given justice to petitioner. But the respondents did fail in their duty. This court while ordering for investigation by the DIG had made it clear that in case it is found that any of the party had given false statement and it is found that some impostor has been given appointment or has wrongly claimed the appointment, such person shall face the consequences. I left it to petitioner to proceed with and to take action in this matter, if he is so advised, by filing a complaint with the police. I left it to petitioner to proceed with and to take action in this matter, if he is so advised, by filing a complaint with the police. In case any such complaint is filed, it goes without saying that, the police shall be duty bound to investigate into the matter accordingly." (Emphasis Supplied) Enquiry Report: (Emphasis Supplied) 12. It is admitted case of the petitioner that vide orders dated 25-5-1996 and 18-6-1996 (Ann.7&8) he was reinstated in service in compliance of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 5-12-1995 on the basis of identification and verification by the then president of the Union. Such action of the then president of the union of identification and verification of petitioner has been found erroneous, immoral and fraudulent in writ petition No.3669/1997. The then president of the Union was party as respondent No.4 in writ petition No.3669/1997, and he was also heard, and for his immoral, fraudulent and erroneous act, he was saddled with the cost of Rs.20,000/- by the judgment dated 3-8-1999. This judgment has been affirmed by the Division Bench vide order dated 23-4-2018 in DB Special Appeal No.1051/2000. In the present writ petition the petitioner also impleaded the then president of the Union as respondent No.4, but the petitioner himself prayed for his deletion, and then on petitioner's prayer, this court vide order dated 18-10-2013 deleted the respondent No.4. 13. Thus in backdrop of above referred factual matrix, the case of petitioner of passing the termination order without any opportunity of hearing is not make out and the issue which has already been set at rest, even to the knowledge of the petitioner in writ petition No.3669/1997, cannot be allowed to be re-opened on mere askance of the petitioner in the guise of petitioner's claim of principles of natural justice. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the impugned termination order dated 13-4-1999 does not warrant any interference by this court and the same is liable to be upheld. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief so prayed. However, it may be noted here that before termination of petitioner with immediate effect vide order dated 13-4- 1999, the petitioner had served with respondents for a period of about three years pursuant to orders dated 25-5-1996 and 18-6-1996 in compliance of order dated 5-12-1995 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief so prayed. However, it may be noted here that before termination of petitioner with immediate effect vide order dated 13-4- 1999, the petitioner had served with respondents for a period of about three years pursuant to orders dated 25-5-1996 and 18-6-1996 in compliance of order dated 5-12-1995 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also a fact that the petitioner was found an impostor as he wrongly claimed himself to be "Om Praksh" at Sr.No.55 of the list enclosed with the SLP and got his reinstatement in service pursuant to Supreme Court's order, however, he was terminated on 13-4-1999, but no recovery of wages for intervening period was ordered. Similarly, during course of the present writ petition, interim order dated 18-6-1999 was passed in favour the petitioner, and which interim order was confirmed after hearing counsel for both parties, the petitioner has been allowed to continue in service during this writ petition. Obviously wages/ service benefits have been paid to the petitioner for the work done by him. In such peculiar and special circumstances of the present case, this court, in the interest of justice, deems it just and proper to observe that wages/ service benefits already paid to the petitioner, cannot be recovered from him, but since the termination order of petitioner dated 13-4-1999 has not been interfered with on merit, the petitioner is not entitled to other service benefits in future. 14. For reasons and observations made herein above, the writ petition is disposed of without any interference with the impugned termination order dated 13-4-1999 of the petitioner. The petitioner will not be entitled to any service benefits in future, however, no recovery shall be made from the petitioner as wages paid to him have been paid for the work done. 15. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.