A.K. Goswami, J.;- This Writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.05.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 8477 2002, whereby the writ petition was allowed by setting aside the orders impugned in the said petition, namely, order dated 06.07.01, whereby the promotion of the writ petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendent Engi­neer (Civil) for short, Dy.S.E. (Civil), with effect from 01.01.1998 was withdrawn in view of his failure to move on transfer to Western Regional Business Centre (for short "WRBC') and consequently withdrawing the joining report submitted by the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 on promotion and re-fixing his scale of pay with effect from 01.01.98 as also the order dated 11,09.01 by which amount of recovery to be made from the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 was worked out. 2. The writ petitioner/respondent No. 1, while he was working as Executive Engineer (Civil), for short, E.E. (Civil), at Eastern Re­gion Business Centre (for short 'ERBC'), ONGC, Sibsagar, was transferred to WRBC by order dated 05.03.98. On the basis of the representation dated 09.03.98, the ONGC authorities, by order dated 12.05.98 deferred such transfer up to 15.05.99 with a condition that thereafter, he would automatically stand relieved for joining at his place of posting at WRBC. By an order dated 22.06.98, issued by the appellant No.4, the writ petitioner was promoted along with two other officers to the post of Dy.S.E.(Civil) with effect from 01.01.98 under a scheme called ''Quantifi­cation Scheme" and the writ petitioner took charge of the promoted post of Dy. S.E.(Civil) at ERBC, Nazira itself. Thereafter, the peti­tioner filed a representation dated 31.03.99 for cancellation of his transfer order dated 05.03.98 on the ground of education of his children. The representation was accompa­nied by an undertaking given by him to the effect that he would forgo his future promo­tion and he would not have any claim for con­sideration of his case for his future promo­tion. While the request made by the petitioner for his transfer back to ERBC was pending consideration, the ONGC authorities, by an order dated 10.05.99, transferred him from Sibsagar to Lakwa. On 09.05.99, an order was issued by the Respondent No.4 disal­lowing his request for cancellation of transfer. The appellant No.4 also issued an order dated 09.05.01 cancelling the transfer order dated 05.03.98 and reverting him to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) from the post of Dy.S.E.(Civil). On 09.05.99, an order was issued by the Respondent No.4 disal­lowing his request for cancellation of transfer. The appellant No.4 also issued an order dated 09.05.01 cancelling the transfer order dated 05.03.98 and reverting him to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) from the post of Dy.S.E.(Civil). Order dated 09.05.01 was followed by the order dated 06.07.01 about which reference has already been made. An appeal was submitted by the petitioner on 11.07.01 followed by letter dated 30.07.01 as an addendum to the appeal and while the said appeal was pending, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was recovered from the salary of the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 06.07.01. During the pendency of the appeal, order dated 11.09.01 was issued. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also not accepted by the competent authority and on the aforesaid broad facts, the writ petitioner approached this Court by means of an appli­cation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant had filed an affidavit justifying the cancellation of the promotion order and the order of recovery for the ex­cess amount drawn by him while he was in the promotional post. The appellant relied on the conditions attached to the promotion or­der dated 22.06.98 and the provisions con­tained in Clause 7(25) (g) of the ONGC Re­cruitment and Promotion Regulation, 1980, for short, the Regulation. While Regulation 7(25) (g) of the Regulation casts an obligation on every proraotee officer to join at their place of posting within a period of 90 days from the dale of issuance of promotion order failing which the promotion order shall suo-motu become invalid and withdrawn, the con­ditions 2, 3 and 4 of the promotion order dated 22.06.98 provide that though on pro­motion, an officer may take charge of the pro­moted post of Dy. S.E.(Civil) at the present place of posting, they would stand relieved of their duties on or before the period indi­cated against each to join at the place of post­ing and that they must join within the outer limit of 45 days from the order of promotion, failing which the promotion order would also become invalid and shall be treated as can­celled and withdrawn automatically. 3. It would appear the writ petitioner made three-fold arguments before the learned Single Judge. 3. It would appear the writ petitioner made three-fold arguments before the learned Single Judge. The first contention advanced was that the cancellation of the promotion by order dated 09.05.01 was illegal because of the fact that after he had assumed charge of the pro­moted post of ERBC, he was transferred from Sibsagar to Lakwa. With regard to the direc­tion for recovery of amount, it was contended that such recovery is bad because it was sought to be effected without issuing any show cause notice or giving any opportunity to jus­tify his stand and lastly, it was contended that he having retired in the month of August 2006, orders impugned would have adverse con­sequences upon him. The appellant had con­tended that the writ petitioner having failed to comply with the conditions laid down in the promotion order and in view of Clause 7(25)(g) of the Regulation, no case was made out for interference and the orders dated 06.07.01 and 11.09.01 were basically sequel to the order of cancellation of the promotion order. 4. The learned Single Judge on consider­ation of the materials on record came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner had failed to comply with the conditions incorporated in the promotion order by not joining in his promoted post at WRBC and therefore, hav­ing regard to the terms and conditions of the promotion order as well as Clause 7(25)(g) of the Regulation, there is no illegality in re­spect of cancellation of the order of promo­tion. The learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that till the order dated 06.07.01, the petitioner had continued to serve as Dy. S.E.(Civil). The learned Single Judge also held that no notice was issued before issuing the order on recovery and therefore, it mili­tated against the principle of natural justice. Further, there being no requirement in the Regulation in force that the financial benefit extended during the period of holding of pro­motional post has to be refunded if any of­ficer is demoted subsequently, the learned Single Judge made a determination that re­covery is not sustainable in law. On the above premises, the learned Single Judge set aside the orders dated 06.07.2001 and 11.09.2001, which were annexed to the writ petition as Annexures DC and XII, respectively. 5. We have heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. Haque, who appears for the sole respondent/writ pe­titioner. 6. Mr. On the above premises, the learned Single Judge set aside the orders dated 06.07.2001 and 11.09.2001, which were annexed to the writ petition as Annexures DC and XII, respectively. 5. We have heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. Haque, who appears for the sole respondent/writ pe­titioner. 6. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the ap­pellants has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is immaterial that the petitioner had continued to work in the promoted post till 06.07.2001 inasmuch as the consequence and effect of failure of the writ petitioner to act in terms of the order of promotion and the Clause 7(25)(g) of the Regulation, the promotion order had become invalid suo-motu and therefore, it must be held that there is no promotion at all. He also urges that the principles of natural justice cannot be invoked in the instant case in respect of the recovery sought to be effected as the same was not by way of penal measure, but merely a consequential order following cancellation of the order of promotion. He has also sub­mitted that the learned Single Judge commit­ted error of law in setting aside the order dated 06.07.2001 while upholding the cancellation order dated 09.05.2011. The counsel of the writ petitioner/respondent, on his part, sup­ported the impugned judgment. 7. The contents of the order dated 09.05.200 lisas follows :- "Transfer of Shri M.N. Mishra, Dy. SE(Civil), CPF No. 46044 from ERBC to WRBC ordered vide office order No. TBG/37(2)/ATC-Civil/98 dated 05.03.98 is hereby cancelled under the following conditions: (i) Shri M.N. Mishra, will be reverted to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) and will continue to serve as Executive Engineer (Civil) for the remaining period of his ser­vice in the Corporation, (ii) He will not have any career growth in the services of Corporation. (iii) His promotion to the post of Dy. Suptdg. Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 01.01.98 stands withdrawn in view of his failure to move on transfer to WRBC based upon his undertaking." 8. From the aforesaid order it is clear that promotion of the writ petitioner to the post of Dy.S.E.(Civil) with effect fromOl.01.1998 was withdrawn. The learned Single Judge has, as indicated earlier, did not interfere with the aforesaid order dated 09.05.2001. 9. From the aforesaid order it is clear that promotion of the writ petitioner to the post of Dy.S.E.(Civil) with effect fromOl.01.1998 was withdrawn. The learned Single Judge has, as indicated earlier, did not interfere with the aforesaid order dated 09.05.2001. 9. It would also be appropriate to extract herein below the contents of the order dated 06.07.2001 :- "As per Office order No. 47/1686/89/TBG dated 09.05.2001 received from Manager (P&A) - TBG, ONGC, Dehradun, the promotion of Shri M.N. Mishra, ID. No. 46044 to the post of Dy.SE (Civil) w.e.f. 01.01.98 stands withdrawn in view of his failure to move on transfer to W.R.B.C. Accordingly the joining report submitted by Shri Mishra on promotion as Dy. SE (Civil) is hereby withdrawn and his pay is hereby re-fixed w.e.f. 01.01.98 in the scale of Rs. 13750/- -18700/-. Date Pay refixed Pay Drawn 1.1.98 Rs.16086+726/- Rs. 17051+726/-S.P. S.P. 1.1.99 16729+726/- 17733+726/- 1.12000 17398+726A 18442+726A 1.12001 17974+726/- 19180+726/-" 10. The aforesaid order would indicte that order dated 06.07.2001 was issued as a cor­ollary to the order dated 09.05.2001 and ac­cordingly, his joining as Dy.S.E.(Civil) was withdrawn and his pay was re-fixed with ef­fect from 01.01.1998 in the pay scale of Rs.13750-18700/-. 11. The writ petitioner was promoted as Dy.S.E.(Civil) w.e.f. 01.01.1998. His promo­tion having been withdrawn/cancelled by or­der dated 09.05.2001, necessarily, the pay of the writ petitioner has to be fixed w.e.f. 01.01.1998 in the appropriate scale of pay. Therefore, we are in agreement with the coun­sel for the appellants that there is no infirmity with the order dated 06.07.2001, and to that extent, the learned Single Judge was not cor­rect in setting aside the said order. 12. With regard to the recovery sought to be effected from the pay of the writ petitioner, we find that the learned Single Judge had taken note of all relevant factors while com­ing to the conclusion that recovery sought to be effected by order dated 11.09.2001 is le­gally not tenable. There is no dispute that the writ petitioner continued to work as Dy.S.E.(Civil) till 06.07.2001. We are of the opinion that the writ petitioner is entitled to the salary and emoluments of the higher post of Dy.S.E.(Civil) so long as he had actually served in that post, notwithstanding the fact that such promotion was cancelled later on. There is no dispute that the writ petitioner continued to work as Dy.S.E.(Civil) till 06.07.2001. We are of the opinion that the writ petitioner is entitled to the salary and emoluments of the higher post of Dy.S.E.(Civil) so long as he had actually served in that post, notwithstanding the fact that such promotion was cancelled later on. Accordingly, we repel the contention that the writ petitioner's continuance of service as Dy.S.E.(Civil) should be considered alto­gether irrelevant and immaterial. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in interfer­ing with the order dated 11.09.2001. While protecting the salary and emoluments drawn by the writ petitioner for the period he had served as Dy. S.E.(Civil) and ordering that no recovery shall be made, we also hold that his pay is to be re-fixed as contained in the order dated 06.07.2011 for all other pur­poses. 13, In the result, the writ appeal is partly allowed as indicated above. 14. No cost.