1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Khalasi on 15.1.1959. He came to be absorbed and regularized on the post of Fitter Grade-2 on 1.5.1964. He then superannuated from service on 30.6.1998. After his superannuation when the issue of fixation of his pension arose, he was sought to be reverted to the post of Khalasi by an order dated 23.5.2002 nearly 34 years after the benefit was granted to him.

3. He came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6298/2000. This Court on 13.12.2001 noticed that such an order to his prejudice at this belated stage could not be passed except after proper opportunity to show cause including an opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, the respondents passed an order dated 23.5.2002 reiterating the justification of the order dated 23.5.2002.

4. It is the specific case of the petitioner in paragraph-20 of the writ application that the order dated 23.5.2002 came to be passed in contravention of the directions of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6298/2000 inasmuch, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing and the order was ex parte.

5. This has not been denied in the counter affidavit of the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the State contended that the petitioner had filed a representation in pursuance of the order of this Court and upon consideration of which the impugned order has been passed. The order of this Court and the principles of natural justice stood complied. Any interference by this Court with the impugned order shall result in the revival of an illegal order.

7. Even if this Court were to ignore the twice repetition of the order of this Court on the earlier occasion of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and this Court were to accept the argument that the representation of the petitioner was considered, this Court still finds it difficult to accept a substantive compliance of the earlier order of this Court.

8. From a bare perusal of the order dated 23.5.2002 it is apparent that there is no consideration of the representation of the petitioner and the reasons why the grounds urged in the representation were not acceptable.

9. The law stands settled that reasons, in an order, are the heart of the order. It prevents arbitrariness, ensures fair play and grants satisfaction to the citizen that he has had a fair chance, that his case had been properly considered, that he was unfortunate in law not to get the relief.

10. That admittedly has not been done in the present case. If the respondents have chosen to flout the orders of this Court, it shall be at their own risk.

11. Violation of a Court order inviting proceedings under the contempt jurisdiction is an entirely different issue from the power of this Court to set aside an order passed contrary to the order of the Court making it a nullity. In 1982 B.B.C.J. 425 (Sri Nawal Kishire Prasad Sinha Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) the Division Bench was considering the validity and the elections held contrary to the stay order passed by this Court. It was urged that the only option available was to proceed in the contempt jurisdiction. This Court rejecting the argument in the relevant extract at paragraph-8 held as follows:

"8. ... But without initiating a proceeding for contempt, this Court can quash any order or proceeding done in disregard of such orders which may also tantamount to contempt. It is very difficult to accept this extreme proposition that the acts done in defiance of the Courts order can only be dealt with under the Contempt of Courts Act where a complete machinery is provided for, and in no other manner. The Act does not put any bar. By accepting this proposition this Court will have to, completely, ignore the illegal acts of the subordinate authorities and, I may hasten to add, this will lead to dangerous results......."

12. The Division Bench held that an order passed in violation of a Court order was non est.

13. The petitioner i