1..... W.A. No.867 of 2011 Anil Kumar Tiwari State of M.P. & ors 25.08.2011 Shri Vijay Shukla, Counsel for the appellant. Shri Vivek Agrawal, G.A. for respondents No. 1 to 5. Shri R.K. Verma, Counsel for respondent No.9. This appeal is directed under Section 2(1) of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam,2005 assailing the order dated 26.7.2011 in W.P. No.11889/11(s) by which a writ petition preferred by respondent No.9 was allowed and certain directions were issued to the respondents of writ petition, including the appellant herein. The grievances of the appellant are as under :- 1. That no notice was issued in W.P.11889/11 and without hearing the appellant, the order was passed. 2. That such stringent order ought not to have been passed against the appellant without extending an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 3. That the appellant's representation against the order of repatriation Annexure P-1 of W.P. No.11889/2011, was pending before the respondents and because of this the appellant was not relieved. 4. So far as the respondent No.9 is concerned, he has already joined at the place of G.L. Mandve, who was also repatriated vide Annexure P-1, so respondent No.9 was not affected because of non-relieving of the appellant from his place of posting. 5. That the order of the learned Single Judge has affected the rights of the appellant substantially as the aforesaid order was passed without extending an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 2..... W.A. No.867 of 2011 Anil Kumar Tiwari State of M.P. & ors 25.08.2011 6. That the order passed by the learned Single Judge may be set aside and the appellant be allowed an opportunity to plead his case before the Single Bench. Shri Agrawal and Shri Verma, learned counsels appearing for the respondents supported the order passed by the Single Bench. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate if the order passed by the Single Bench is referred, which reads as under :- “Shri R.K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, for respondents No.1 and 2 on advance notice. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 7.6.2011 issued by the respondent No.2, the persons like respondents No.6 to 9. who were sent on deputation to work in N.V.D.A. have been called back and for their posting in the parent department, orders have been issued. Bythe same order, the petitioner has been sent to serve in N.V.D.A. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner has been relieved from his place of posting and he has given his joining in N.V.D.A. However, even after giving joining respondent No.3,4 and 5 have taken no steps to issue posting order in respect of the petitioner, as a result the petitioner is not getting the salary. The representation to the said effect has been made, yet no action has been taken and only to protect the interest of respondents No.6 to 9, the relieving orders of the said persons from N.V.D.A. have not been issued, though they have already been called back by their parent department. Considering the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to respondents No. 1 and 2 to see that the persons like respondents No.6 to 9 shaould be called back in their parent department, be get relieved from N.V.D.A. immediately and be directed to be posted in place of posting as indicated in the order dated 7.6.2011 (Annexure P-1). The respondents No.3,4 and 5 are hereby directed to relieve the persons like respondents No.6 to 9, who have been called back by their parent department, immediately for giving joing in their respective place of posting as has been ordered 3..... W.A. No.867 of 2011 Anil Kumar Tiwari State of M.P. & ors 25.08.2011 by the parent department. It is made clear that the respondents No. 3,4 and 5 will comly with this order and the Secretary of Water Resources Department of Govt. of Madhya Pradesh , will ensure that order of this Court is complied with by the authorities of NVDA. The salary of the petitioner be also paid and posting order be issued immediately in the N.V.D.A. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of finally.” From the perusal of the aforesaid order, it appears that no notice was issued to the appellant who was respondent No.8 in the writ petition. It is also clear that by order, the respondents No.3,4 and 5 have been directed to relieve the appellant from his present place of posting to the parent department immediately for giving his joining in the parent department. The learned Single Judge has also directed the respondent No.3,4 & 5 to comply with the order and the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of M.P. has been directed to ensure the compliance of the order. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that a review was also preferred by the appellant but it was dismissed vide order dated 16.8.2011 in Review Petition No.386/11. The aforesaid order is affecting the rights of the appellant and the appellant requires an opportunity of hearing. But considering the subsequent event that the appellant has been relieved by the respondents vide order Annexure R-9/4 dated 10.8.2011 in compliance of the order passed by the Single Bench, to join in parent department and the appellant may press his representation to respondent. We, therefore, finally dispose of this appeal with the directions that the appellant may submit a fresh representation to respondent(s) for ventilation of the 4..... W.A. No.867 of 2011 Anil Kumar Tiwari State of M.P. & ors 25.08.2011 grievances, which will be considered and decided by the respondent(s) expeditiously in accordance with law without being prejudice with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. No order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE vj