JUDGMENT 1. The matter, in view of consent of learned counsel for parties, is admit­ted and taken up for final disposal. 2. Petitioner, engaged as work charge employee, on 1st March 1974, was con­verted into regular temporary cadre on 15th April 1980 and declared quasi permanent from 5th August 1983. He was appointed as Installation Surveyor on 1st July 1985 and promoted as Technician-III on 1st January 1998. There was pay normally between eight senior of­ficials of Electric Division 2nd, Srinagar and their juniors that was brought to the notice of respondent department. Vide Order No. 1010/EDII dated 1st March 1999, sanction for placement of eight officials, including Ghulam Ahmad Bhat - petitioner, in the pay scale of 4200 -5325 equivalent to their junior counterparts, being of their iden­tical grade and cadre with effect from 1st September 1997, the date from which their junior counterparts were placed in the pay scale of 4200-5325, was accorded subject to the condition that the officials were not involved in any embezzlement/unlawful activities and criminal case, were not under sus­pension, and their work and conduct remained satisfactory. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Division, Baghat/Chanapora, vide No. 1044/CSD dated 4th March 1999, informed that above eight officials including pe­titioner, were neither involved in any embezzlement/unlawful activities, criminal case, nor were under suspen­sion and that work and conduct of these officials remained satisfactory. It was after a decade less by few months (i.e.09 years and 02 months) that vide Order No. ED-II/2 of 2008 dated 2nd April 2008, issued by Executive Engineer, Electric Division 2nd, Srinagar, that sanction was accorded to the grant of retirement of petitioner with effect from 30th April 2008 from government service after attaining the age of 58 years. 3. The office of Accountant General (A&E), J&K, Srinagar, vide No. PNR-I/C/S-636/2008-09/352-54 dated 4th June 2008, informed Executive Engi­neer, Electric Division 2nd, Srinagar, that the benefit of SRO 225 of 1997, raising pay scale from Rs. 3050-4590 to Rs. 4200-5325 with effect from 1st September 1997 was given without ob­taining approval of Administrative De­partment and that necessary sanction be obtained and "entry to this effect re­corded in the service book" under proper attestation, otherwise a due/drawn statement showing the excess pay drawn as a result of giving benefit un­der SRO 225 of 1997 may be prepared and forwarded to the office of Accoun­tant General (A&E), J&K, Srinagar for effecting recovery. The office of Execu­tive Engineer, Electric Division 2nd, Srinagar, in response to Accountant General (A&E), J&K, Srinagar's letter No. PNR-I/C/S-636/2008-09/352-54 dated 4th June 2008, drew excess drawn statement with effect from 09/1997 to 04/2008 and vide letter No. ED-II/1797 dated 06.06.2008 [4th July 2008], in­formed Senior Accounts Officer (Pen­sion), Accountant General, Srinagar -respondent No. 6, that the petitioner was due for benefit of SRO 59 dated 06.02.1990 but could not be granted/paid to him due to procedural delay and was being now granted to him in terms of Clarification issued by Director, Codes, Finance Department. He further mentions that "entries have been re­corded" in petitioner's Service Book and the excess pay drawn amounting to Rs. 2, 33, 583.00 be recovered from peti­tioner from his Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG). 4. The petitioner aggrieved of letter No. ED-II/1797 dated 06.06.2008 [4th July 2008], has come up with the writ petition on hand on the grounds that petitioner alongwith other officials has been placed in the pay scale of 4200-5325 by respondents and entry to that effect was made in his service book and before paying petitioner the salary in the pay scale of 4200-5325, clearance was also obtained from the concerned officers of petitioner and others, regard­ing their involvement in any embezzle­ment or unlawful activities/criminal case and also to the effect that they are not under suspension and that their work and conduct remained satisfac­tory. The petitioner, it is insisted, thus, was not required to obtain any admin­istrative approval and that it was for respondents to obtain administrative approval, if at all required. It is urged that in the event respondents have not obtained or given any administrative approval, responsibility thereof cannot be saddled on petitioner and recovery cannot be effect from his gratuity and that respondent No. 4 was required to do needful in the matter but instead he asked respondent No. 6 to effect recov­ery of an amount of Rs. 2, 33, 583/-. It is pleaded that communication dated 04.06.2008 reveals that respondent had given benefit of SRO 59 to petitioner in terms of Clarification issued by Direc­tor, codes Finance Department. 2, 33, 583/-. It is pleaded that communication dated 04.06.2008 reveals that respondent had given benefit of SRO 59 to petitioner in terms of Clarification issued by Direc­tor, codes Finance Department. In terms of Director, Codes, Finance Department's letter No. A/29(96)-112 dated 09.06.2006, it is insisted, the Accountant General - respondent No. 5, was informed that in case any em­ployee who had been otherwise due for his placement in the 'apportioned' graded pay scale in terms of the provi­sions of Appendix 2-A of J&K Civil Service (Revised) Pay Rules, 1987 as in­serted vide SRO-59 of 2/1990, amended from time to time, with regard to rel­evant 'apportioned' grade structure, but has not been given benefit which was due upto 15.01.1996 (date of issue of SRO-14) due to the reasons purely at­tributable to the procedural delay, be considered. The petitioner, on the strength of grounds averred in the pe­titioner, has sought the following relief: (i) Writ of certiorari, quashing impugned letter No. ED-II/1797 dated 04.06.2008/ 04.07.2008 addressed by respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 6 for effecting recovery of Rs. 2, 33, 538/- from the petitioner's DCRG; (ii) Writ of mandamus, commanding respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 4,77,928/- as worked out by respon­dent No. 4 as provided under SRO of 2/1990 dated 06.02.1990 as also full pension, DCRG, communication etc. in favour of petitioner. 5. The stand taken by respondents 1 to 4 in opposition to writ petition is that petitioner's placement in the pay scale of 4200-5325 was done by the then Ex­ecutive Engineer without any compe­tence and authority and that same could have been done only after getting con­firmation/approval of Administrative Department. It is insisted that it is re­spondent No. 6, who has detected the illegality committed by the Executive Engineer by placing petitioner in higher pay scale under SRO 225 of 1997 with effect from 01.09.1997 without approval and that after receiving communica­tion from respondent No. 6, recovery proceedings were initiated and amount of Rs. 2, 33, 583/- to be detected from petitioner's pensionary benefits. 6. The respondents 5&6, in their Reply, have stated that the petitioner's pay was stepped up from his pay scale viz 3050-4590 whereas, he was hold­ing the pay scale of Rs. 4200-5325 w.e.f. 01.09.1997 without obtaining Adminis­trative Department's approval. 2, 33, 583/- to be detected from petitioner's pensionary benefits. 6. The respondents 5&6, in their Reply, have stated that the petitioner's pay was stepped up from his pay scale viz 3050-4590 whereas, he was hold­ing the pay scale of Rs. 4200-5325 w.e.f. 01.09.1997 without obtaining Adminis­trative Department's approval. It is in­sisted that as the necessary sanction was not obtained, same was brought to the notice of concerned department vide No. PWR-I/S-636/2008-09/3520/54 dated 04.06.2008 and that respondent department was requested to obtain necessary sanction or intimate the excess pay and allowances drawn on account of said anomaly. 7. I have gone through the pleadings and heard learned counsel for the par­ties. 8. Regulations known as Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations apply to all servants. Article 242 of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations (Volume-I), while annun­ciating average emoluments for reck­oning of retrial benefits of an employee, who has retired on or after 01.10.1976, provides under government instruc­tions, inserted vide F.D. Notification SRO -45 dated 28.01.1980- "Government instruction: - With effect from 1st January, 1976 the av­erage emoluments are determined with reference to emoluments drawn during the last ten complete months. This work involves not merely an ar­ithmetical calculation of the average emoluments but also a check of the correctness of the emoluments which enter into the calculation. The correct­ness of the emoluments on the first date of the ten months period would naturally depend on the correctness of the emoluments prior to this date. However, any such check of the cor­rectness of past emoluments, whether in the office preparing the pension papers or latter in the office respon­sible for issuing the pension payment order, should not become an occasion for an extensive examination going back into the distant past, the check should be the minimum which abso­lutely necessary and it should in any case not go back to a period earlier than a maximum of twenty four months preceding the date of retirement. " 9. From the above rule position, it is obvious that there is absolute bar to check the correctness or otherwise of the past emoluments beyond the period of 24 months preceding the date of re­tirement. " 9. From the above rule position, it is obvious that there is absolute bar to check the correctness or otherwise of the past emoluments beyond the period of 24 months preceding the date of re­tirement. In the present case correct­ness of emoluments drawn by peti­tioner before 24 months of his retire­ment, for that reason, cannot be dis­puted while reckoning the petitioner's retrial benefits and any dispute as re­gards correctness of emoluments, drawn by petitioner, raised by Accoun­tant General after about a decade while calculating retrial benefits of peti­tioner, cannot be permitted inasmuch as such query is expressly barred for Accountant General, to go back to a period beyond two years from the date of retirement, to check and correct the past emoluments drawn by petitioner, in view of Article 242 of J&K Civil Ser­vice Regulations. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner during course of argument states that petitioner's case squarely covered by Accountant General (A&E) J&K Srinagar's letter No. PNR-5/SRO-59/ Policy/08-09/68-72 dated 29.12.2008. The said letter dated 29.12.2008, at request of learned counsel for peti­tioner, is taken on record. It would be advantageous to reproduce apropos ex­cerpt of letter No. PNR-5/SRO-59/Policy/08-09/68-72 dated 29.12.2008 hereunder: "In view of the Government order No. 270-PDD and Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer, Power De­velopment Department letter No. PDD/AC/11/08/2008 dated 13.02.2008 on the subject cited above, where under it has been clarified that in case any employee who was other­wise due for the placement in the ap­portioned graded pay scale in terms of Appendix 2-A of J&K Civil Service (Revised) Pay Rules 1987 as inserted vide SRO 59 of 02/1990, amended from time to time, with regard to rel­evant apportioned grade structure, but has not been given benefit which was due up to 15.01.1996 (date of issue of SRO 14) due to reasons purely at­tributable to the procedural delay, may be considered at this stage, but it should be within the relevant appor­tioned grade structure of the relevant said Appendix 2-A of J&K Civil Ser­vice Revised Pay Rules, 1987. While admitting the said clarifica­tion in this office, it has been desired to obtain a categorical certificate in the following proforma in respect of each case from the competent appointing authority who is empowered to grant such upgradation under normal rules, to enable this office to authorize pensionery benefits accordingly. While admitting the said clarifica­tion in this office, it has been desired to obtain a categorical certificate in the following proforma in respect of each case from the competent appointing authority who is empowered to grant such upgradation under normal rules, to enable this office to authorize pensionery benefits accordingly. "It is certified that Shri..........Designation............was entitled to the benefit of SRO 59 dated 05.02.1990 and SRO 393 of 27.11.1997 (as amended from time to time) prior to 15.01.1996 but due to procedural delay the same has been allowed to him after the said date viz. 15.01.1996." 11. The above letter dated 29.12.2008 of Accountant General unequivocally admits the clarification of Finance De­partment for giving benefit of SRO 59 of 1990 to left out employees of Power Development Department and inti­mates Chief Engineer, Electric Main­tenance & RE Wing, Kashmir, Srinagar, Superintending Engineer and Executive engineers of respondent de­partment, to give such benefits after recording Certificate that due to pro­cedural delay benefit of SRO 59 of 1990 could not be given to the concerned employee at the relevant point of time. While relying on letter No. PNR-5/SRO-59/Policy/08-09/68-72 dated 29.12.2008 of Accountant General (A&E) J&K Srinagar, learned counsel for pe­titioner states that impugned letter No. ED-II/1797 dated 04.06.2008 [04.07.2008] itself depicts that peti­tioner was due for benefit of SRO 59, but he could not be paid/granted the said benefit due to procedural delay and same is being granted to him in terms of Clarification issued by Finance De­partment (Director codes) vide No. A/29(96)-112 dated 09.06.2006 and that in this regard necessary entries, as required, were recorded in the petitioner's service book. IN that view of the matter, as petitioner's services are regulated and governed by J&K Civil Service Regulations and he being a retired employee of J&K State Govern­ment (Power Development Depart­ment), is, therefore, entitled to all the benefits, given to similarly situated person(s)/employees, including one emanating from letter No. PNR-5/SRO-59/Policy/08-09/68-72 dated 29.12.2008. 12. The trite law on the subject is that once the department has made fixation wrongly, it cannot reduce the pay by holding that the pay fixation was wrongly doe and that too at the fag end of service of an employee and that the department is not within it rights to deduct the pension. 12. The trite law on the subject is that once the department has made fixation wrongly, it cannot reduce the pay by holding that the pay fixation was wrongly doe and that too at the fag end of service of an employee and that the department is not within it rights to deduct the pension. The pension, it is trite law, is to be fixed on the basis of the salary last drawn by an employee and the pensionary benefits are, accordingly, to be calculated. In this re­gard reference may be made to Mushtaq Ahmad Vs. State & Ors [JKJ 2011(1) 322], Maryam Bano Vs. State [SLJ 2003(1) 188], Perdhuman Krishan Khullar Vs. Union of India [2003 (3) JKJ 432], Randhir Singh & Ors Vs. State of Punjab and another [1996 (6) SLR 391]. 13. For the reasons discussed above, the writ petition is allowed and letter No. ED-II/1797 dated 04.06.2008/04.07.2008 qua recovery of Rs. 2, 33, 583.00 quashed. The respondents are directed to release the withheld pen­sion/gratuity benefits in favour of pe­titioner. 14. Disposed of alongwith connected CMP(s).