JUDGMENT : RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J. 1. The present Special Appeal is preferred by the appellants against the judgment dated 12.04.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 6982 of 2021 (Old WPSS No. 2722 of 1992), whereby, the writ petition of the petitioner was allowed by observing therein that the petitioner would be deemed to be appointed on the regular basis from the initial date of his appointment, i.e. 20.12.1989. 2. The present Special Appeal is barred by limitation and since this Court is deciding the present appeal on its own merit, therefore, with the consent of the parties, the delay in preferring the instant appeal is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner /respondent was selected on the recommendation of the Selection Committee and appointed by an order dated 20.12.1989 on daily wages basis on the post of Typist. This initial appointment was for six months but time to time it was extended, firstly on 22.06.1990 and again by an order dated 28.12.1990. Since time to time extension was given, so the salary of the petitioner was also increased time to time. 4. Since the earlier engagement was on daily wages basis, subsequently, by an order dated 01.08.1992, the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis on the post of Junior Clerk in pay scale of Rs.950-20-1150-25-1500. It is contended before the learned Single Judge that the said appointment was against clear vacancy caused by the promotion of one Mr. N.S. Rawat, who was promoted as a Senior Clerk. 5. It is also contended that the petitioner’s appointment was approved by the Director and since 01.08.1992, he was continuing on temporary basis against the clear vacancy. By an order dated 19.01.1993, the Additional Director cancelled the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the appointment was made without the permission of respondent No. 2. The said order was assailed before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, through a Writ Petition on the ground that the order dated 19.01.1993 is totally arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice as neither a show cause notice has been given nor the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing before cancelling her appointment. The Allahabd High Court stayed the order dated 09.02.1993, which was subsequently extended. The Allahabd High Court stayed the order dated 09.02.1993, which was subsequently extended. Thereafter, the writ petition was transferred to this Court due to bifurcation of the State and the petition was renumbered as Writ Petition (S/S) No. 6982 of 2021. 6. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the order dated 19.01.1993, whereby the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner before terminating the appointment by an order dated 19.01.1993, and as such, the same is in violation of principle of natural justice . 7. Being aggrieved with the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 12.04.2017, the present Special Appeal has been preferred on the ground that the petitioner was given the work of Clerk in Rajkiya Audyogik Prashichhan Sansthan, Rajpur Road Dehradun temporarily on account of the sudden death of Mr. K.C. Upreti, Junior Clerk on 01.08.1992. Subsequently, the same was cancelled due to some personal mistake. 8. It has not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the petitioner was offered an appointment on temporary basis on 01.08.1992. This fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that after the interim order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, the petitioner is continuously working and the stay order was never vacated. Though the petition was dismissed in default on 01.06.2007 and the interim order consequently stood vacated and after a period of nine years, the petitioner filed Restoration Application, which was allowed and the matter was restored on 17.08.2016, along with the interim order. 9. In the entire appeal, it is nowhere stated that during the period when the stay order was not in force due to dismissal of the writ petition for want of prosecution, whether the petitioner was discontinued or not. 10. We perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge, wherein, the order impugned was quashed on the ground that no show notice was given to the petitioner. It is settled principle of law that once an incumbent is appointed, then such an appointment cannot be cancelled without giving notice. This fact has not been disputed by the appellant that no such notice was given to the petitioner before cancelling her appointment. 11. It is settled principle of law that once an incumbent is appointed, then such an appointment cannot be cancelled without giving notice. This fact has not been disputed by the appellant that no such notice was given to the petitioner before cancelling her appointment. 11. Therefore, we do not find any error on the face of the judgment, however, this Court is of the view that treating the petitioner’s to be appointed on regular basis w.e.f. 20.12.1989, should be modified and the same be treated to be effective w.e.f. 01.08.1992, which in fact, the date of actual appointment of the petitioner on temporary basis. 12. Therefore, the Special Appeal is disposed of by modifying the order of the learned Single dated 12.04.2017 by treating the appointment of the petitioner on regular basis from 01.08.1992 instead of 20.12.1989. 13. Subject to the aforesaid, the Special Appeal is disposed of finally.