Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. In this writ petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the office order dated 17.8.2004, whereby and whereunder his upgradation/promotion on the post of Mason Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 165- 204/- by order dated 29th May, 1973 (Annexure 2) has been sought to be cancelled and recovery of the alleged excess payment has been sought to be made. 3. In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed as work charge employee. Later he was upgraded/promoted in the same capacity as Mason Assistant by order dated 29.5.1973 (Annexure-2) in the pay scale of Rs. 165- 204/-. Vide order dated 31st March, 1982, contained in.Annexure-4 his said services was regularised with effect from 1.9.1969 and since thereafter the work from him on the upgraded post was taken continuously and salary was also paid. 4. However, it is contended by the learned counsel for the State that the order of cancellation has been passed on the ground that there was no provision for upgradation/promotion on the higher grade of the work charge employee. In this regard, he referred to the Government decision, contained in Annexure-G to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. 5. I failed to appreciate this submission of the learned counsel for the State. Annexure-G was issued on 2.4.1983 whereas the order for regularisation was passed before it i.e. on 31st March, 1982. Learned counsel for the State has referred to the Government letter dated 16.9.1994, contained in Annexure-G series at page 21 of the counter affidavit to defend the impugned order. According to him, the impugned order has been passed pursuant to the said Government order, which provides that the order giving promotion in the work charge establishment will be wholly irregular and all such promotions must be cancelled after following the required procedure. I am surprised as to how he has placed reliance on the said Government letter dated 16.9.1994. In fact, learned counsel for the State has failed to show that there was any bar in allowing up- gradation/promotion to work charge employee in the year 1973 when this petitioner was allowed upgradation/promotion vide Annexure-2. I am surprised as to how he has placed reliance on the said Government letter dated 16.9.1994. In fact, learned counsel for the State has failed to show that there was any bar in allowing up- gradation/promotion to work charge employee in the year 1973 when this petitioner was allowed upgradation/promotion vide Annexure-2. Further, the said upgradation/promotion was regularised by the Government vide order dated 31st March,1982 (Annexure-4) and it is only after about 31 long years that by the impugned order the upgradation/promotion of the petitioner has been sought to be cancelled and recovery of the alleged excess payment have been ordered to be made. 6. In my opinion, there cannot be any valid justification to cancel the order of upgradation/promotion of the petitioner after lapse of 31 long years and direct for recovery of the alleged excess payment to be made after taking work from him of the said post for such a long period, moreso, when learned counsel for the State has not been able to show that there was any bar in granting upgradation/promotion of the work charge employee in the year 1973. 7. This writ petition is, thus, allowed and the impugned order, contained in Annexure-1 is quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount if any recovered pursuant to the impugned order, contained in Annexure-1.