Judgment Ashok Parihar, J.-In pursuance to decision taken by the State Government in regard to absorption of surplus Cinema Operators as circulated vide order dated 9.1.1970, the petitioner was appointed on the post of LDC w.e.f. 6.1970 vide order dated 6.1970. After usual pay fixation and giving benefit of revised pay-scales from time to time, the petitioners stood retired on 31.1996. In view of pendency of departmental inquiry, provisional pension had already been granted to the petitioner after his retirement. Subsequently on completion of inquiry, a punishment of stoppage of 1% pension for two years was imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 111.2002. It was only at the time of finalisation of pension matter, apart from revising the pay fixation as granted to the petitioner from time to time, a recovery of Rs. 55,371/-has also been ordered vide order dated 212.2003, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. In reply it has been submitted that since it was only a fresh appointment on the post of LDC, there was no question of any absorption. The petitioner was not entitled for pay protection as he was getting from the post of Cinema Operator. Since wrong pay fixation has been made right from the beginning, the recovery has been made after fresh pay fixation from time to time. 3. A bare reading of the letter dated 7.1.1970 would show the surplus Cinema Operators were to be absorbed on different posts as per their qualifications and experience. There is also no dispute that only in pursuance to the above circular, the petitioner was appointed on the post of LDC vide order dated 6.1970, which also makes clears mention of petitioner been treated as surplus Cinema Operator. The pay of the petitioner had accordingly been fixed at the minimum of the pay he was drawing as Cinema Operator. 4. It has also been brought on record by the petitioner that similarly situated surplus Cinema Operators in other Departments on their absorption had been given benefit of pay protection. Copy of order in this regard passed in the case of one Ram Avtar Sharma has also been placed on record. No justification, whatsoever, has been submitted by the respondents as to why different treatment has been given to similarly situated persons in different Departments. Copy of order in this regard passed in the case of one Ram Avtar Sharma has also been placed on record. No justification, whatsoever, has been submitted by the respondents as to why different treatment has been given to similarly situated persons in different Departments. That apart, even otherwise, the impugned order dated 212.2003 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as the same has been passed after a considerable delay without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It may be pertinent to mention here that the appointment was made in the year 1970. Benefit of pay fixation in revised pay-scales had also been made in the year 1976, 1986,1987 and then again in 1989. The petitioner got the same benefit till his retirement in the year 1996. As such, it is wholly unjustified to make revised pay fixation after a delay of more than seven years of the retirement, that also without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, more so, when the same benefit had already been extended to similarly situated persons. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Both the impugned order dated 11.2003 and 212.2003 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to make re-fixation of pay as per benefit already granted to the petitioner prior to his retirement. The petitioner is also held entitled to get all pensionary benefits as per the calculation so made. The entire arrears be paid and PPO & GPO be issued to the petitioner within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Respondents are further directed to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/-to the petitioner alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.