Judgment 1. The petitioner was initially appointed as Gardener in 1991 in the office of the Sub Collector, Hosur. Thereafter, he was temporarily promoted as Office Assistant, by an order dated 08.11.1982. He joined duty on 21.01.1983. His probation was declared in 1984. All these proceedings have been passed by the Sub Collector, Hosur, the appointing authority. The petitioner was also granted selection grade after completion of ten years of service in 1993. 2. While so, G.O.No.890, Revenue Department, dated 22.09.1995 was passed by the Government regularising the services of the petitioner with effect from the date of issuance of the said Government Order. 3. Based on the same, the impugned order dated 17.12.2002 was passed by the respondent ordering recovery of the alleged excess pay paid pursuant to regularisation of his service from 1983 to 1995. 4. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 17.12.2002 of the respondent, the petitioner has filed (O.A.No.6532/2002) the present writ petition. 5. While admitting the Original Application on 27.12.2002, the Tribunal granted interim order, which reads as follows: “ORDER (1) The applicant M.Nanjundiah, working as Office Assistant in the Office of the Tahsildar, Hosur, has filed this application, challenging the order dated 17.12.2002, as per which a sum of Rs.98,000/- is sought to be recovered from him allegedly for the excess amount drawn by him by way of salary. (2) The applicant was appointed as a Gardener in 1981 in the Office of the Sub-Collector, Hosur and subsequently in 1982, he has been appointed as Office Assistant in the same office. His service also has been regularised on 21.1.1983 and his probation was declared in 1984. All these proceedings have been by the Sub-Collector, Hosur, appointing authority. In fact, the applicant has even been granted selection grade salary after completion of 10 years of service in the year 1993. While so, in the year 1995, by G.O.Ms.No.890, Revenue Department, dated 22.9.1995, the applicant's services were sought to be again regularised and regularisation was to take effect from the date of G.O. i.e. 22.9.1995. Because of this G.O., the department is now trying to collect the excess amount paid by way of salary to the applicant like selection grade, increments etc. (3) In view of above facts, interim stay is granted. Admit. Notice returnable by eight weeks. Counter by then. Call along with O.A.No.5688 of 1996.” 6. Because of this G.O., the department is now trying to collect the excess amount paid by way of salary to the applicant like selection grade, increments etc. (3) In view of above facts, interim stay is granted. Admit. Notice returnable by eight weeks. Counter by then. Call along with O.A.No.5688 of 1996.” 6. Earlier, the petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.5688/1996 to quash the portion of order in G.O.No.890 regularizing his services from 22.09.1995 instead of regularising him from the initial date of appointment as Office Assistant in 1983. 7. The said O.A.No.5688/1996 got transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.28913/2006. This Court allowed the said writ petition on 21.11.2006 and the impugned order in G.O.No.890 was set aside only to the extent that it restricts the benefit of regularisation to the date of the Government Order. 8. In view of the order dated 21.11.2006 passed in W.P.No.28913/2006, I am of the view that the order impugned in the present writ petition is also liable to be quashed. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.