Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Petitioner has assailed order dated 28.09.1992 (Exhibit 11) of his reversion from the post of Naib Tehsildar to Girdawar with retrospective from 01.04.1991. 2. Petitioner initially joined service as Patwari on 12.01.1954 and was promoted as Girdawar in June, 1977 and as Naib Tehsildar on ad hoc basis vide order dated 112.1990 (Exhibit 1). While holding post of Naib Tehsildar, he retired from service on attaining age of superannuation (58 years) on 30.06.1991 vide order dated 18.06.1991 (Exhibit 3) and at that time, he was working on the post of Naib Tehsildar in pay scale of Rs. 1,540-2,900/-at basic pay of Rs. 2,120/-as is evident from order dated 01.08.1991 (Exhibit 4), and on the basis whereof , his pensionary benefits such as encashment of unutilised leave were drawn. 3. However, after 15 months of his retirement, without affording an opportunity of hearing, he was reverted with retrospective effect from 01.04.1991 to the post of Girdawar vide order dated 28.09.1992 (Echibit 11). Hence, this petition. 4. Shri R.C. Joshi, Counsel for petitioner contended that once petitioner has retired from service while holding post of Naib Tehsildar, respondents could not have reverted him with retrospective effect to the post of Girdawar, and such decision of the respondents is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India so also of principles of natural justice. 5. No reply has been filed by respondents. However, Shri B.K. Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate for the State submitted that since his appointment on promotional post of Naib Tehsildar was on ad hoc basis, and was against leave vacancy for election purposes and once its tenure stood over, he was deemed to be reverted and merely because he continuously worked till date of retirement, no right could have conferred to him and mere lapse on the part of authority in not passing order of reversion at relevant point of time, would not render him to hold post of Naib Tehsildar for any span of time during his service tenure, and in this view of matter, there is no error committed while taking decision of reversion with retrospective effect vide order (Exhibit 11). 6. 6. Having considered contentions of both the parties and perused material on record, it is an admitted fact that petitioner held post of Naib Tehsildar when he attained age of superannuation on 30.06.1991; and on retirement, the retiral benefits have to be computed on the basis of his last drawn remuneration on 30.06.1991. Once he was working in pay scale of Rs. 1,540-2,900/-prescribed for post of Naib Tehsildar, drawing basic pay at Rs. 2120/-, he became entitled for his retiral benefits to be computed from the post of Naib Tehsildar, which he held on the date of retirement i.e., 30.06.1991, in my opinion, no reversion with retrospective effect could have been passed, merely because, ad hoc promotion was made for a particular purpose or for any short span of time, especially when petitioner was promoted as per his seniority in feeder cadre of Girdawar and was eligible to hold post of Naib Tehsildar. In present circumstances, the impugned decision with regard to his reversion with retrospective effect in my opinion was arbitrary and is violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. 7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. Order of reversion dated 28.09.1992 (Exhibit 11) is hereby set aside and petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits flowing thereon and the respondent are directed to recompute his retiral and other benefits on the basis of last drawn pay of Naib Tehsildar held on 30.06.1991, and after due computation and fixation consequent upon aforesaid direction, arrears be paid alongwith interest @ 9% p.a., within a period of three months. No order as to costs.