V. K. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) BY means of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for following relief, which is quoted below : (1) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13. 6. 1996 for recovery of Rs. 8364/- being the pay paid to the petitioner w. e. f. March to may, 1995. (2) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to continue the petitioner in service and pay the entire service benefits including the arrears of salary w. e. f. 28. 2. 1995 to 28. 2. 1997 being a Class IV employee after attaining the age of 60 years. (3) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner till 28. 2. 1997. (4) Issue any other writ or order or direction which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (5) Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner. ( 2 ) BRIEF background of the case as mentioned in the writ petition is that petitioner was appointed as Attendant (Class- IV post) in Employees State Insurance Scheme on 14. 11. 1959. Petitioner claims that he has served on the aforementioned post till 2. 3. 1986. On 26. 2. 1986 petitioner was promoted to the post of Untrained Dresser in the pay scale of Rs. 330-495. Petitioner contends that post of Untrained Dresser is Class- IV post as per relevant rules and Government Order. Petitioner submits that in view of the Government Order dated 27. 2. 1982, all the post carrying basic pay of less than Rs. 354/- per month, had been grouped in category d post whose age of retirement is 60 years. This Government Order has been further modified by Government Order dated 30. 4. 1996 and the post carrying basic pay at the scale of Rs. 825-1200 will be covered under Group d of Class-IV post. Copy of aforementioned Governments Orders dated 27. 2. 1982 and 30. 4. 1996 has been brought on record. Petitioner submits that his date of birth as per Service book in 28. 2. 1987 and by virtue of Group d employee he would attain the age of superannuation on 28. 2. 825-1200 will be covered under Group d of Class-IV post. Copy of aforementioned Governments Orders dated 27. 2. 1982 and 30. 4. 1996 has been brought on record. Petitioner submits that his date of birth as per Service book in 28. 2. 1987 and by virtue of Group d employee he would attain the age of superannuation on 28. 2. 1997 and thus in all eventuality petitioner is entitled to function till 28. 2. 1997. Petitioner contends that though he had been functioning continuously, but his salary was stopped w. e. f. 31. 5. 1995 and matter had been referred to State Government for clarification as to whether petitioner is to be treated as Class III employee or Class IV employee for the purposes of his superannuation. Petitioner was informed that he has been superannuated and then petitioner represented the matter. Even pension papers alleged to have been submitted to the directorate of Pensions, U. P. The aforementioned papers had been returned directing the respondents that petitioner being Untrained Dresser, he belongs to Class- IV employee, hence his pension matter be decided by the department itself. As petitioner was allowed to continue upto 31. 5. 1995 and he had been paid his salary, but by means of letter dated 13. 6. 1996 directives had been issued directing recovery of Rs. 8364/- from the petitioner treating the age of retirement of petition as 58 years on 28. 2. 1995. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. ( 3 ) TO this writ petition, counter affidavit has been filed and therein it has been contended that government Order dated 27. 2. 1982 is not applicable to the petitioner. Further, it has been contended that post of Dresser is Class- III post carrying basic pay scale of Rs. 825-1200. It has also been contended that petitioner has been accorded retiral benefit as per the same. It has been reiterated that petitioner has been awarded his post retiral benefit, treating him to be Class-III employee on the basis of the Government Order dated 27. 2. 1982. Recovery, which has been made from the petitioner from the period 1. 3. 1995 to 31. 5. 1995, has been sought to be justified. It has been reiterated that petitioner has been awarded his post retiral benefit, treating him to be Class-III employee on the basis of the Government Order dated 27. 2. 1982. Recovery, which has been made from the petitioner from the period 1. 3. 1995 to 31. 5. 1995, has been sought to be justified. ( 4 ) NO rejoinder affidavit has been filed, however, three separate supplementary affidavits have been filed and therein it has been contended that promotion of the petitioner was merely on papers and in spite of promotion order, at no point of time, petitioner was accorded pay scale of dresser during his service. Whereas petitioner submits that w. e. f. 26. 2. 1985 he ought to have been accorded pay scale of Untrained Dresser and w. e. f. 6. 3. 1993 as Trained Dresser. Statement of fact in other supplementary affidavits in pith and substance is the same. ( 5 ) AFTER pleadings inter-se papers have been exchanged, the matter has been taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties. ( 6 ) ON 8. 12. 2003, learned Standing Counsel was directed to obtain necessary instruction in the matter as to whether petitioner is to be treated as Class- IV employee or Class- III employee. Nothing has been brought on record on the basis of which petitioner could be treated as Class-III employee, inasmuch as, the post on which petitioner is alleged to have been promoted is the post of Untrained Dresser. In respect of post of Trained Dresser, it is well settled that it is Class-III post but in respect of Untrained Dresser, the position is not clear. In this reference, the government Order, which has been filed alongwith writ petition and counter affidavit has to be seen wherein criteria for determining Group-C and Group-D employees has been mentioned dependent on pay scale Candidates receiving less than Rs. 350/- have been included in Class "d" category. Petitioners appointment was made in the pay scale of Rs. 330-Rs. 495/- (Subsequently revised) and thus based on this classification, petitioner was to be treated as Class IV employee. The Director of Pension has also written letter asking therein that petitioner be treated as class-IV employee. In this background superannuation of the petitioner was unfair exercise of power as such order of superannuation of petitioner treating the age to be 58 years is thus illegal. The Director of Pension has also written letter asking therein that petitioner be treated as class-IV employee. In this background superannuation of the petitioner was unfair exercise of power as such order of superannuation of petitioner treating the age to be 58 years is thus illegal. ( 7 ) IN this view of the fact, order dated 13. 6. 1996 is hereby quashed and set aside. Petitioner was entitled to function till the age of 60 years and petitioner is also entitled to all consequential benefits. ( 8 ) WITH these observations, writ petition is allowed and disposed of. . .