The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of compliance with principles of natural justice and the impact of subsequent government orders on the court's decision.

The petitioners were appointed as Mazdoors in National Malaria Eradication Programme between 1969 – 1970 in the Public Health Department. Later, the Mazdoors were re-designated as Field Workers. They were on consolidated pay.

2. The Government issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.2656, Health and Family Planning Department, dated 210. 1973, and directed that Mazdoors and laboratory Boys, appointed on consolidated pay could be brought to regular scale of pay, on completion of 5 years of service. Thereafter, the Government issued another order in G.O.Ms.No.496, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 010. 1997, directing retrospective regularisation of services of 258 Mazdoors and 15 laboratory Boys. However, while ordering retrospective regularisation, it was stated by the Government that the monetary benefits could be paid from 29.07.1987.

3. Based on the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.496, the first respondent issued a proceeding dated 16.07.1998 to all the subordinate officials, to implement the G.O.Ms.No.496. Based on the direction issued by the first respondent, the second respondent passed an order in February 1999, granting retrospective regularisation to the petitioners and monetary benefits from 29.07.1987.

4. However, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 16.02.2000, withdrawing the pay and also the increments given to the petitioners, on the ground of audit objection.

5. The petitioners filed Original Application in O.A.No.2837 of 2000 (W.P.No.38059 of 2005) to quash the aforesaid order dated 16.02.1999 of the second respondent.

6. While ordering notice in the Original Application, the Tribunal granted interim stay of the impugned order. In view of the interim stay, the Impugned order was not given effect to.

7. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. I have perused the entire materials, including reply affidavit filed by the respondents.

8. The impugned order has to be set aside on the ground of non- compliance of principles of nature justice. In fact, the Tribunal, by order dated 25.04.2000 had granted an Interim stay of recovery alone.

9. However, there was a later development and the Government issued another order in G.O.D.No.359, Health and Family Welfare (AB1) Department, dated 14.03.2007, granting retrospective regularisation to Office Assistants, like that of the petitioners and monetary benefits, from 29.07.1987. In fact, the reply affidavit states that the first respondent sent proposals to the Government and the matter is awaiting for the orders from the Government. The Mazdoors, like the petitioners, approached the Tribunal, claiming retrospective regularisation based on G.O.Ms.No.496, and brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, submitted a proposal to the Government, regarding retrospective regularisation.

10. In these circumstances, the Tribunal directed the Government to pass orders. The Government passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.359 Health and Family Welfare (AB1) Department, dated 14.03.2007, granting retrospective regularisation to the Mazdoors, who were appointed like that of the petitioners. While granting retrospective regularisation, monetary benefits were given by the Government from 29.07.1987. Since the petitioners are similarly situated, they are also entitled to same benefit as given in G.O. No. 359 as referred above. In fact, the first respondent passed the order dated 16.07.1998, rightly granting retrospective regularisation and the monetary benefits with effect from 29.07.1987. The second respondent also correctly passed order in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 16.07.1998 of the first respondent. Hence the audit objection committed mistake and the second respondent passed impugned order, pursuant to the audit objection. Now the matter is settled by the Government in the G.O.No. 359, and retrospective regularisation was grant