Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the orders, contained in Annexures-1 2 & 3, whereby and whereunder first time bound promotion granted to them vide letter no. 117 dated 17.1.1994, contained in Annexure-20 has been cancelled and the order for recovery of alleged excess pay drawn by them in consequence of their said promotion has been passed. 3. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that apart from the fact that the said orders have been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice on merit also the impugned orders are bad for the simple reason that regularization of the services of the petitioners from work charge establishment with effect from 22.10.1984 vide order dated 9.10.1991 has been sought to be cancelled after 10 long years on the plea that the said regulariza- tion itself was bad as they had not completed five years of their service in work charge establishment as was required as per the Government circular. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that service of the petitioners were regularised by the Government itself vide order dated 9,10.1991, contained in Annexure-19 obviously on consideration of all circulars and now after ten long years the Government has arbitrarily attempted to rescind the same after taking work from them pursuant to its own order, contained in Annexure-19. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the Government cannot take any such action after such a long period specially when work from these petitioners have been taken pursuant to its own order, contained in Annexure-19. 4. Learned counsel for the State, however, submitted that it is true that the Government vide Annexure-19 regularised the service of the petitioners with effect from 22.10.1984, but, since they had not completed the required period in work charge establishment, the Government is just in cancelling the said order even after 12 long years. In this regard, he referred to Government circular, contained in Annexure-A. 5. I am unable to appreciate the said submission of the learned counsel for the State. It is true that by Annexure-A, the Government decided to regularise the service of all those who completed five years as work charge employee, but, at nowhere mentions that five years will be the qualifying period before a person can be regularised. I am unable to appreciate the said submission of the learned counsel for the State. It is true that by Annexure-A, the Government decided to regularise the service of all those who completed five years as work charge employee, but, at nowhere mentions that five years will be the qualifying period before a person can be regularised. Moreover the service of the petitioners were regularised by the Government itself vide Annexure-9, which is not in violation of any statutory provision. If the Government itself decided to regularise the sen/ices of these petitioners with effect from 22.10.1984 apparently not treating five years as the qualifying service, they cannot turn down the same after 12 long years and pursuant thereto they cannot direct for recovery of the alleged excess payment. Moreover, from Annexure-24 it appears that their first time bound promotion was also confirmed on that basis long back on 5.2.1996, which is being sought to be cancelled and recovery is being sought to be made after such a long time on the aforementioned plea that their time bound promotion was wrong. 6. In the result, writ application is allowed. The impugned orders, contained in Annexures-1, 2 & 3 are quashed. Respondents are restrained from making any recovery pursuant to the impugned orders, contained in Annexures-1, 2 & 3.