JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner joined as Secondary Grade Teacher on 05.08.1964 and was promoted as Elementary School Headmaster on 22.12.1984. The petitioner was awarded Special Grade in Elementary School Headmaster post with effect from 22.12.1984 and he retired from service on 31.07.2001, as Elementary School Headmaster without any further promotion. 2. The petitioner served for 10 years in Special Grade Elementary School Headmaster, thus, became entitled to the stagnation increment / super grade from 23.12.1994. The Government awarded one increment, i.e. Super Grade for the similarly situated employees, who had completed 10 years service in Special Grade Elementary School Headmaster. 3. As per Government instructions, issued vide G.O.Ms.No.56 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 28.09.1998, the monetary benefit under the Government instructions was to be given effect from 01.09.1998. Based on Government instructions, the petitioner was also awarded one increment in Super Grade for the period from 01.09.1998 till his retirement on 31.07.2001. 4. The case of petitioner is that when the pension proposal was sent, a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) was withheld from gratuity amount of petitioner to recover one increment in Super Grade, granted to petitioner with effect from 01.09.1998 till 31.07.2001. 5. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the order, affecting civil rights of petitioner, has been passed without notice to petitioner. 6. The impugned order is also challenged, on the ground that the impugned order, on the face of it, is arbitrary, being against settled principles of law, that the benefit even if wrongly granted, cannot be withdrawn retrospectively in absence of allegations of fraud or misrepresentation. 7. It is not disputed that the amount of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) has been withheld from the gratuity of petitioner, without issuing any show cause notice. The impugned order, therefore having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained. The impugned order further suffers from vice of arbitrariness, as in absence of allegations of fraud or misrepresentation, the benefit even if wrongly granted, could not be withdrawn from an employee. 8. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued, directing the respondents to release the withheld amount to petitioner within two months of the receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued, directing the respondents to release the withheld amount to petitioner within two months of the receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% from the due date i.e. date of retirement till payment. 9. No costs.