JUDGMENT Hon’ble Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. 1. The petitioner is an ex-army man. On pre-mature retirement, he was re-employed in the establishment of U.P. Jal Nigam as Junior Engineer on 24th August, 1984. Pursuant to the Government Order dated 31st March, 1970, the petitioner was sanctioned dearness allowance on the basic pay scale plus pension payable by the Army. Therefore, the order with regard to sanction of dearness allowance was passed on 10th February, 1987 and he had hitherto been enjoying this benefit until the impugned order dated 17th March, 2007 was passed. By the impugned order, all of a sudden, without giving any hearing whatsoever the aforesaid benefit of granting dearness allowance has been withdrawn. 2. In the counter affidavit, it has been said that the benefit which has been given to the petitioner is not permissible under law even going by the Government Order dated 31st March, 1970. As such, on the strength of subsequent order dated 19th August, 1986, the said benefit was withdrawn. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even assuming 1996 order provides for non-payment of dearness allowance to the employees like petitioner, such order cannot have retrospective operation as the petitioner appointed in 1984 and the benefit of dearness allowance was granted taking into consideration of the amount of pension and basic pay. He contends that this is absolutely whimsical action on the part of the respondents as inconsistent case has been made out in the counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the benefit has been withdrawn relying on 1997 order. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the benefit, if any, given to the petitioner is illegal and wrongful and actually he is given double benefit. Accordingly, in order to set the matter right, this benefit of granting dearness allowance has been withdrawn. 4. It is admitted position that the petitioner was granted the benefit of dearness allowance as mentioned in the order dated 10th February, 1987, and this benefit was given from the date of his appointment. Therefore, the petitioner until the impugned order was passed was enjoying this benefit. It appears from the impugned order, this benefit has been withdrawn relying on a subsequent order dated 9th August, 1996. Therefore, the petitioner until the impugned order was passed was enjoying this benefit. It appears from the impugned order, this benefit has been withdrawn relying on a subsequent order dated 9th August, 1996. I am of the view as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that order of 1996 cannot have any retrospective operation to withdraw the benefit granted to the petitioner in 1984. Moreover, I fail to understand why the respondents took so much time to withdraw benefit in the year 2007 when according to the respondents benefit should be withdrawn on the basis of order of 1996. 5. In the counter affidavit, I noticed there is casual reference to the order dated 31st March, 1970. I am of the view that this order really supports the petitioner’s contention and dilute the contention of the respondents. Therefore, I hold that this order is not sustainable. Apparently, it appears that the petitioner is getting excess benefit because dearness allowance is paid taking into consideration of the amount of pension and basic pay of the post now held by him. But then the hands of the Court are tied, howsoever, the case on fact is appalling. The administrative order cannot have any retrospective effect unlike the legislative action which sometimes may have retrospective effect. 6. Therefore, the writ petition succeeds and impugned order is set aside. Interim order already passed stand confirmed. 7. There will be no order as to costs.