PRAKASH TATIA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

( 2 ) THE appellants now legal representatives of the original plaintiff have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court dated 13th October 1999.

( 3 ) THE facts of this case are relevant because plaintiff in his life time filed the suit for injunction against the State Government and the Aryuveda Department of the State Government with the allegation that plaintiff is in government service as he was appointed by the State Government by order dated 4th June, 1951. He was appointed as part time labour, but he continued to serve till the impugned order dated 12-12-1988 was issued by the state Government directing to terminate the services of the plaintiff. The plaintiff challenged the State Governments order dated 12-12-1988 and consequential orders dated 17-12-1988 and 23-12-1988 principally on the ground that the order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff and since the plaintiff is Government servant, he cannot be removed from service without assigning any reason. It appears that question of jurisdiction