Honble VYAS, J.—This writ petition is the second innings of the petitioner for seeking relief against the respondents for allowing retiral benefits on the basis of selection scales already granted to him by the respondent University and for quashing Annex. 12 dated 18.11.2005 and Annex. 13 dated 9/13.12.2005. (2). Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed initially as Helper to Mechanic with effect from 3.5.1966 in the grade of Rs. 45-70. He was confirmed on the post of Helper to Mechanic with effect from 3.5.1967 vide order dated 6.6.1968. (3). Initially, the petitioner was appointed in the Udaipur University and, later on, when separate Agriculture University known as Rajasthan Agriculture University, Udaipur was established the petitioner became employee of the said University which, however, was further re-named as Mohan Lal Sukhadia University and, ultimately upon formation of Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur the petitioner became employee of the said University. (4). The petitioner while working as Helper was promoted to the post of Pump Operator vide order dated 7/11.8.1986. The said post is also known as Assistant Mechanic in pursuance of BOMs decision dated 18.7.1996. As per the petitioner, in the absence of rules with a view to providing benefit of higher post (promotion) the case of the petitioner was considered by the Committee set up for adjudging the suitability of the in-service Class IV employees the Vice Chancellor was pleased to appoint the petitioner to the post of Pump Operator on promotion and petitioner joined on the said promotion post on 12.8.1986, therefore, his pay was fixed in relevant pay-scale of Rs. 420- 740. (5). After coming into force of the circular order dated 25.1.1992 for grant of selection scales, the respondent University while considering the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Pump Operator in the year 1986 did not grant the first selection scale, however, by reckoning 18 years of service, the second selection scale was granted to the petitioner in the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2050 and third selection scale was granted to the petitioner with effect from 3.5.1993, so also, the fixation of pay was made after granting the third selection scale in the pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2600, Prescribed for the promotional post of Junior Mechanic as per the relevant recruitment and promotion rules. 1200-2050 and third selection scale was granted to the petitioner with effect from 3.5.1993, so also, the fixation of pay was made after granting the third selection scale in the pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2600, Prescribed for the promotional post of Junior Mechanic as per the relevant recruitment and promotion rules. The petitioner was also allowed the fixation of pay as per the recommendation of the Vth Pay Commission and fixed at Rs. 5150/- in the pay-scale of Rs. 5000-8000 which is analogous to pre-revised pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2600. (6). The case of the petitioner is that he was permitted to retire peacefully from the service without any dispute but two increments and dearness allowance immediately preceding the retirement were not released and on account of objection having been raised by the Accounts Section that the petitioner has been wrongly granted selection grade, the gratuity amount was not released in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that after retirement of the petitioner the retiral benefits were not paid to him on the ground that the petitioner had wrongly been granted the selection grades on completion of 18 and 27 years of service and he was wrongly treated as promoted on the post of Pump Operator in the year 1986. The respondents therefore proceeded to rescind the selection scales granted to the petitioner after completion of 18 and 27 years of service on the ground that the petitioner was never promoted to the post of Pump Operator in the year 1986 and, as per the respondents, the said appointment in the year 1986 was fresh appointment, therefore, for grant of selection scale the service period was to be reckoned from the date of fresh appointment on the post of Pump Operator i.e., 12.8.1986. Thereby meaning that the selection scale granted to the petitioner as per circular dated 25.1.1992 after completion of 18 and 27 years of service while treating the petitioners first promotion in the year 1986 on the post of Pump Operator and service tenure of the petitioner calculated right from his initial appointment on 3.5.1966 was wrongly done and upon this objection being raised by the respondents the benefits granted to the petitioner for grant of selection scale after completion of 18 and 27 years of service were treated to be wrong because, as per the respondents, the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Pump operator was fresh appointment and as per para 3 of the Government order dated 25.1.1992 service of 9, 18 and 27 years, as the case may be, shall be counted from the date of first appointment in the existing cadre in accordance with the service rules. Further, as per the respondents, if the employee subsequent to his first appointment to a post in a cadre is appointed to some other post in the same cadre on in other cadre, service from the date of the latter appointment shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of grant of selection scale. Further, it is provided in the circular order dated 25.1.1992 that if an employee subsequent to his first appointment to a post in a cadre/service in accordance with the provisions contained in the relevant service rules is promoted to some other cadre/service, the first appointment shall be taken into consideration for the grant of selection scale. Therefore, as per the respondents, the petitioner was wrongly granted second and third selection scales while reckoning his service period with effect from 3.5.1966 and while treating his fresh appointment on the post of Pump Operator as promotion, therefore, at the time of retirement, both the benefits of selection scales granted to the petitioner after completion of 18 and 27 years of service were taken back and recovery order was passed. (7). The petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the illegal action of the respondent for recovery and the benefits earlier granted to him having been taken back approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1883/2005, decided on 24.8.2005. (7). The petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the illegal action of the respondent for recovery and the benefits earlier granted to him having been taken back approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1883/2005, decided on 24.8.2005. In the said writ petition, decided by a co- ordinate Bench, the following order was passed on 24.8.2005: "Thus, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and the order dtd. 22.3.2005 along with PPO dtd. 24.3.2005 (Annex. 6) and revision of pay of the petitioner vide statement (Annex. 9A) are quashed and set aside. However, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation within a period of 15 days from today, and the concerned authority is directed to consider and decided the same either way in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt of the said representation. If it is found that the petitioner is entitled for any relief in accordance with law, then the same may be given to the petitioner and if the petitioner is not found entitled to the relief sought for, then a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, may be passed, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner." (8). After passing of the above order by this Court, a representation was made by the petitioner within the stipulated time which is placed on record as Annex. 11. But, again, vide impugned order dated 18.11.2005 Annex. 12 and subsequent order dated 9/13.12.2005 (Annex. 13), the respondent University held in the order passed upon the representation that the petitioner is not entitled for second and third selection scales and treating the petitioners initial appointment on the post of Pump Operator as on 12.8.1986, granted one selection scale after completion of 9 years of service on 12.8.1995 in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 and passed order for recovery and, accordingly, passed order for granting final pension. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged above orders Annex. 12 dated 18.11.2005 and Annex. 13 dated 9/13.12.2005. (9). 4000-6000 and passed order for recovery and, accordingly, passed order for granting final pension. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged above orders Annex. 12 dated 18.11.2005 and Annex. 13 dated 9/13.12.2005. (9). It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents cannot treat the petitioners promotion on the post of Pump Operator as fresh appointment because the opportunity of promotion was granted to the petitioner alongwith other persons while adjudicating their suitability by the committee, meaning thereby, the said promotion cannot be treated as fresh appointment because the petitioner was granted promotion to the higher post after due consideration and adjuding the suitability by the committee set up by the University and the petitioner was granted benefit of Rule 26A of the RSR which is to be provided in the event of promotion. Therefore, the denial of selection scales granted to the petitioner after completion of 18 and 27 years of service after retirement is totally illegal and has no foundation to stand in the eye of law. It is contended by the learned counsel that the respondents are wrongly treating the petitioners case covered under para 3 of the Finance Department order dated 25.1.1992 in which it is provided that, the service of nine, eighteen or twenty seven years, as the case may be, shall be counted from the date of first appointment in the existing cadre/service in accordance with the provisions contained in the Recruitment Rules; provided that if an employee subsequent to his first appointment to a post in a cadre/service, as a result of direct recruitment, is appointed to some other post in the same cadre or any other cadre, service from the date of latter appointment shall be take into consideration for the purpose of grant of Selection Grade. Therefore, when representation was filed by the petitioner in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition (being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1883/2005, decided on 24.8.2005), the respondents have again rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioners appointment on the post of Pump Operator was fresh appointment which cannot be treated as promotion to the said post. (10). (10). Thus the main contention of the petitioner is that the respondents have illegally rescinded the benefit extended to the petitioner while reckoning his service period with effect from 3.5.1966 and rightly granted the selection scales after completion of 18 and 27 years of service because the first promotion was already given to the petitioner in the year 1986 from the post of Helper to the post of Pump Operator and in this view of the matter Annex. 12 and Annex. 13 passed by the respondents deserve to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to benefit of selection scales after completion of 18 and 27 years of service which had already been granted to him prior to his retirement. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to restore the said selection scales which had already been granted to the petitioner before his retirement and fixation of pay-scale in the revised pay-scale was also made from time to time by the competent authority and, thereafter, retiral benefits may be released. (11). Per contra, by way of filing reply, it is specifically stated by the respondents that although the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Helper to Mechanic; but, in fact, there was no provision for promotion on the post of Pump Operator because at the relevant time, the service rules were not in existence, therefore, for granting benefit of higher post to the experienced persons in the University, it was thought expedient to provide them appointment on higher post. In this connection, applications were invited from the in-service candidates in the Performa while issuing circular dated 5/7.3.1986 and, after receiving the applications from amongst in services candidates working on different posts in Class IV cadre for fresh appointment to the post of Pump Operator and other posts, their cases were considered and after adjudging their suitability, inter alia the petitioner was appointed on the post of Pump Operator, which is evident from order dated 7/11.8.1986. Therefore, during the service tenure after implementation of the notification issued by the Government for grant of selection scales on 25.1.1992, the petitioner was wrongly allowed the second and third selection scales while treating the fresh appointment on the post of Pump Operator as promotion; but, later on, after retirement of the petitioner, when this mistake came to the knowledge of the respondent department, then, it was felt necessary to make re-fixation in accordance with order dated 25.1.1992 because the case of the petitioner is covered under para 3 of the order dated 25.1.1992, in which, it is specifically provided that if an employee working on a particular post subsequently appointed to a higher post in a different cadre, then, his service shall be counted for the purpose of selection scale from the date on which he was appointed in that service cadre. Therefore, the petitioners case was examined in accordance with the rules and, after examination, it emerged from the facts on record that the petitioner was wrongly granted the benefit of second and third selection scale, therefore, the earlier order of rescinding both the selection scales was passed on 12.3.2005 and PPO was subsequently issued on 24.3.2005; but, both these orders as well as order of revision of pay-scale (Annex. 9A to that writ petition) were set aside by this Court in the earlier writ petition decided on 24.8.2005 and the petitioner was granted liberty to file representation within 15 days to the concerned authority and the respondents were directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, within one month from the date of receipt of the representation. (12). It is further submitted by the respondents in the reply that after filing representation in accordance with the aforesaid judgment the petitioners case was re-considered but again petitioner was not found eligible for the grant of second and third selection scales because as per the rules of the University appointment of the petitioner on the post of Pump Operator was fresh appointment and that appointment was made after adjudging the suitability of the petitioner and that order cannot be treated as promotion. Earlier, the said appointment order was wrongly treated as promotion and, therefore, the mistake committed by the respondent University was rectified in consonance with the provisions of law. Earlier, the said appointment order was wrongly treated as promotion and, therefore, the mistake committed by the respondent University was rectified in consonance with the provisions of law. Therefore, the petitioner has rightly been allowed the benefit of selection scale while treating his entry post as Pump Operator in the pay-scale of Rs. 3050-4590 as on 12.8.1986 and after completion of 9 years from the first appointment on the post of Pump Operator i.e., 12.8.1986, the petitioner has been granted first selection scale in the pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000. In this view of the matter, proper fixation has been made and order for grant of pension has been issued which is Annex. 13 dated 13.12.2005. (13). According to the respondents, no case is made out against the University for maintaining benefits granted before retirement and due to wrong fixation made by the respondent University earlier, the University is well within its jurisdiction to rectify the mistake and effect recovery in respect of the over- payments made and, therefore, the recovery has been properly made after due fixation and there is no question of any direction being issued in the matter for quashing the recovery of the amount which is illegally and wrongly been paid to the petitioner. (14). Learned counsel for the respondents had invited attention of this Court towards the following judgments in support of justification for the order of recovery: i. 2004(2) DNJ (Raj.) 802 ii. (2000) 9 SCC 187 iii. (1997) 6 SCC 139 iv. 1997(1) WLC (Raj.) 611 (DB) v. (2006) 11 SCC 492 vi. Judgment dated 13.12.2007 of this Court in D.B. Civil Spl. Appeal (W) No. 208/2006. (15). It is contended by learned for the respondents that in the above judgments it has been held that if any amount is illegally or by mistake paid is recoverable from the employee and such recovery cannot be quashed. Therefore, when the petitioner was not promoted in the year 1986 and was granted benefit of second and third selection scales erroneously, the respondents have rightly passed an order for re-fixation and recovery of the said benefit which was illegally paid to the petitioner, therefore, no interference is warranted in this case. (16). I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties. (17). (16). I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties. (17). It may be observed that in the instant case record of the case and existing rules which were in existence in the year 1986 were called from the University for perusal. The said record as well as report of the Nag Committee which is said to be the resolution passed by the University for considering the matter of appointment by way promotion have been placed before the Court for perusal. (18). In this case, undisputedly it is nowhere refuted by the respondents that the petitioner was not appointed on the post of Helper to Mechanic on 3.5.1966 and there is no dispute between the parties upon the fact that the petitioner was provided appointment on the post of Pump Operator as per the recommendation of the Committee set up for adjudging the suitability of the in-service Class IV employees in which the petitioner was found suitable and provided appointment. It is admitted case of the respondents that the petitioner was qualified for the said post and was possessing the necessary qualification/eligibility. This is undisputed fact that at the relevant time petitioner was not given to understand that appointment on the post of Pump Operator is a fresh appointment, rather the benefit of Rule 26A of the Rajasthan Service Rules was extended to the petitioner. It is nowhere disputed by the respondents that the petitioners fixation of salary was made from time to time and in the order of pay fixation it is mentioned that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Pump Operator. Thereby meaning that until retirement of the petitioner the respondent University was treating the petitioner to have been promoted to the post of Pump Operator in the year 1986 from Class IV cadre and the benefits under the revised Pay Scales Rules and, selection scales were allowed by the University itself. There is no allegation of misrepresentation against the petitioner. (19). From the above facts it is obvious that only after retirement of the petitioner it has been felt necessary by the Accounts Department of the University that the petitioner was wrongly allowed the second and third selection scales. In my opinion, when the above facts are undisputed then petitioner cannot be blamed for grant of second and third selection scales. (20). In my opinion, when the above facts are undisputed then petitioner cannot be blamed for grant of second and third selection scales. (20). For the purpose of adjudication of the controversy in the matter, it is important to examine the order Annex. 12, whereby the petitioners representation was rejected. In para 4 of the order Annex. 12 dated 18.11.2006, the following observation has been made: "On 7/11.8.1986, Mr. Hari Ram, Class IV after selection was appointed as Pump Operator on the recommendations of the Selection Committee and posted in CTAE, Udaipur in the grade of Rs. 420-740 when he joined on the post on 12.8.1986. His pay was also fixed at Rs. 460/- p.m. allowing the fixation benefit under Rule 26(A) of RSR (Rule No. 38 of University)." The above para 4 of the impugned order clearly speaks that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Pump Operator vide order dated 7/11.8.1986 on the recommendation of the Selection Committee in the pay-scale of Rs. 420-740 and his pay was fixed at Rs. 460/- p.m. allowing the fixation benefit under Rule 26A of the Rajasthan Service Rules as per Rule 38 of the University. Thereby meaning that the petitioner was allowed benefit of Rule 26A of the RSR. Rule 26A of the RSR reads as follows: "26A.-(1) When a Government servant holding a post in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity is promoted to a post in the regular line of promotion in his service, cadre or department, in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity, his initial pay in the time scale of the highter post shall be fixed at the stage next above the pay notionally arrived at by increasing the actual pay drawn by him in the lower post by one increment at the stage at which pay is drawn. Provided that where a Government servant is, immediately before his promotion to a higher post, drawing pay at the maximum of the time scale of the lower post, his initial pay in the time scale of the higher post shall be fixed at the stage next above the pay notionally arrived at by increasing the pay drawn at the maximum in the lower post by an amount equivalent to the last increment in the lower post. (2) ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... ......" (21). (2) ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... ......" (21). Upon perusal of Rule 26A of the RSR it is clear that when a government servant holding a post in a substantive, or temporary or officiating capacity is promoted to the post in regular line of promotion in his service, cadre, or department in a substantive, temporary or in officiating capacity his initial pay at the time of fixation in the pay scale of the higher post shall be fixed at the stage next above the pay notionally arrived at by increasing the present pay in the lower pay-scale by an amount equivalent to the last increment in the lower post; meaning thereby, Rule 26A is applicable if any person is promoted in his service, cadre or department. (22). At any stage, it has never been the case of the respondents that the petitioner was granted benefit of Rule 26A of the RSR erroneously at the time of appointment by way of promotion on the post of Pump Operator in the year 1986. Therefore, it is established fact that the petitioner was not appointed afresh on the post of Pump Operator in the year 1986 and was granted promotion after adjudging his suitability because, being otherwise eligible for promotion, he was working as Helper to Mechanic in the University since 1966 and this fact is not disputed by the respondent University. (23). In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the respondents contention that the petitioner was not promoted and in fact he was given fresh appointment is devoid of any substance; more so, in the absence of any word to the contrary submitted by the respondents, it must be taken as an admitted fact that the petitioner was rightly granted benefit of Rule 26A of the RSR at the time of appointment of the petitioner on the post of Pump Operator in the year 1986. This fact forecloses any supposition of fresh appointment on the post of Pump Operator in the year 1986. (24). It need be observed that in the absence of any Rules being existence at the relevant time in the University, resolution was passed on 1.12.1982 whereby Report of the Nag Committee was accepted and it was resolved in para A.3 that, "in order to increase the scope of further promotion horizontal movement of staff in certain cases would be desirable. It need be observed that in the absence of any Rules being existence at the relevant time in the University, resolution was passed on 1.12.1982 whereby Report of the Nag Committee was accepted and it was resolved in para A.3 that, "in order to increase the scope of further promotion horizontal movement of staff in certain cases would be desirable. However, gaining of experience of 3-6 months on an equivalent posts in allied trade would be desirable. With such arrangement the inservice staff would become eligible for vertical movement in the next higher post, i.e. a vehicle/tractor driver may be asked to work against the post of Assistant Mechanic and then he become eligible for Junior Mechanic. The posts are listed in Annexure `A. (25). In this view of the matter, the purpose of accepting Report of the Nag Committee was to grant benefit of promotion in the absence of service rules. Therefore, the order dated 7/11.8.1986 was a promotion order of the petitioner on the post of Pump Operator and, accordingly, the respondents had rightly granted the benefit of second and third selection scales after completion of 18 and 27 years of service while treating the said appointment on the post of Pump Operator as appointment by way of promotion. (26). It is admitted position of the case that in the year 1986 only recommendation of the Nag Committee for promotion were in existence in view of the resolution passed by the University on 1.12.1982. No other service rules or provisions were in existence except the approved recommendations of the Nag Committee. The respondents have specifically pointed out that Annex. 15 filed by the petitioner to substantiate the argument that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Pump Operator is acceptable in view of the fact that in the year 1986 the post of Pump Operator was promotional post as per the Report of the Nag Committee. The respondents have specifically pointed out that Annex. 15 filed by the petitioner to substantiate the argument that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Pump Operator is acceptable in view of the fact that in the year 1986 the post of Pump Operator was promotional post as per the Report of the Nag Committee. In this view of the matter, the petitioner was granted benefit of Rule 26A which is evident from the impugned order itself, then, in that situation, the respondents cannot deny the second and third selection scales while submitting that the petitioner was appointed afresh in different cadre and this case is covered under para 3 of the order dated 25.1.1992 because the benefit of Rule 26A is only available on promotion which is admittedly given by the respondents in pursuance of the recommendation of the Nag Committee as well as for fixation of pay at the time of appointment on the post of Pump Operator. That being the position, when the petitioner was rightly allowed the selection scales after completion of 18 and 27 years of service and was rightly fixed in revised pay-scales from time to time, which is evident from the fixation orders placed on record by the petitioner as Annex. 17 onwards and, accordingly, was allowed to draw salary till his retirement, thereafter, in the evening of his life, the respondents have arbitrarily and illegally arrived at a baseless conclusion that he was in fact appointed afresh on the post of Pump Operator. (27). Something is required to be observed with regard to taking action by the respondents after retirement of the petitioner. A low-paid employee was allowed certain benefits in his service tenure and after allowing such benefits, not only once but many times fixation of pay were made and it was well within the knowledge of the respondents till the retirement of the petitioner that the petitioner was granted second and third selection scales after completion of 18 and 27 years of service while treating his appointment on the post of Pump Operator as promotion. After retirement however objection was made by the Accounts Department and it has been observed that the petitioner was wrongly granted selection scale. After retirement however objection was made by the Accounts Department and it has been observed that the petitioner was wrongly granted selection scale. In my opinion, the fixation orders of the petitioner bear signatures of the higher authorities of the University such as Accounts Officer, Dean, Registrar, Treasury Officer besides the employee who prepared the fixation orders. These fixations have been made from time to time while treating the petitioner as having been promoted on the post of Pump Operator. But, after retirement of the petitioner, one fine morning, an objection is raised by an Accounts official and, unfortunately, without testing the merit of the objection on the anvil of the facts on record, more so, when the respondents have nowhere, at any stage, pleaded that application of Rule 26A was erroneous, straight away rescinded the benefits granted to the petitioner during his service tenure. In that view of the matter, the judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondents are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. (28). As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is allowed. Orders Annex. 12 dated 18.11.2005 and Annex. 13 dated 9/13.12.2005 are hereby quashed and it is held that the petitioner was in fact promoted to the post of Pump Operator vide order dated 7/11.8.1986 and respondents have rightly granted the benefit of second and third selection scales to the petitioner upon completion of 18 and 27 years of service. The respondents are directed to release the retiral dues in favour of the petitioner accordingly while restoring the benefits of second and third selection scales to the petitioner, with 6% simple interest on the arrears. This shall be done within a period of three months. (29). No order as to costs.