JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, J. The appellants, respondents in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the respondent, being the petitioner, have preferred the present letters patent appeal (LPA), laying challenge against the judgment dated 1.8.2011, rendered by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.2230 of 2011, Surinder Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another. 2. We have heard the learned Advocate General, Mr. Shrawan Dogra assisted by Mr. Romesh Verma, Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Additional Advocates General, Mr. J.K. Verma and Mr. Kush Sharma, Deputy Advocates General for the appellants and Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records. 3. The precise ground of attack against the impugned judgment dated 1.8.2011, is that the writ petitioner could not have been granted higher time scales of Rs.3000-4500 and Rs.3700-5300 after completion of 8/18 years of service, for the reason that by that time neither he had passed the departmental examination nor had attained the age of 50 years, entitling him for exemption from passing the said examination. It being so, over payment of Rs.2,81,065/- (rupees two lac, eighty one thousand and sixty five only) wrongly made to him, was rightly ordered to be withheld from the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity playable to him “till the outcome/final decision from the Government”, as per Annexures P-1 and P-2 to the writ petition. 4. Per contra, the writ petitioner is seeking support from clarificatory letter dated 28.2.1995, Annexure P-4, addressed to the Director of Horticulture, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla by the Under Secretary (Horticulture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to the effect that “the next higher scale after 8/18 years of service may kindly be released strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed for the crossing of E.B. excluding the imposition of passing the Departmental examination at least for the present”. (emphasis supplied) 5. A similar question arose for consideration before a Single Bench of this court, presided over by one of us (Justice V.K. Sharma), in CWP No.901 of 2014, R.C. Lakhanpal and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, wherein it was held asunder vide para 7 of the judgment dated 21.7.2014 and the writ petition was allowed vide operative part of the judgment contained in para 8 in the following terms :- “7. Consequent upon revision of pay scales vide notification Annexure P-1, dated 24.4.1993, certain clarifications, inter alia, whether benefit of revised pay scale was also extendable in favour of those officers, who were yet to clear the departmental examination, were sought. While seeking those clarifications, it was specifically stated that as per existing Recruitment and Promotion Rules (R&P Rules), there was no requirement of passing of departmental examination for the petitioners and other similarly situate officers, who at that time were holding non-gazetted post of Assistant Development Officers. In response to letter dated 7.11.1994, Annexure C1, it was clarified that “the next higher scale after 8/18 years of service may kindly be released strictly in accordance with procedure prescribed for the crossing of E.B. excluding imposition of passing the Departmental examination at least for the present.” (emphasis supplied). It shall be pertinent to notice that benefit of revision of pay scales in terms of notification Annexure P-1, dated 24.4.1993 had already been granted in favour of petitioner No. 3, Sh. K.S. Katoch vide pay fixation statement Annexure P-2, dated 31.5.1993, where after vide letter dated 28.2.1995, Annexure P-13, it was clarified that such benefit could be given to him and other similarly situate officers without imposing the condition of passing of departmental examination “at least for the present.” The situation with regard to other petitioners is also not different. Further more, it is not in dispute and rather it is the admitted position that all the petitioners had thereafter passed the Departmental examination in 2001, vide certificates, copies of which along with typed copies of some of them have been brought on record as Annexure PR-1 (Colly). Thus then (sic. when) the requirement of passing departmental examination was relaxed “at least for the present” and thereafter the petitioners were permitted to appear in the departmental examination, which they have successfully cleared, the respondents are precluded on the principle of estoppel to say that since the petitioners had not cleared departmental examination before attaining the age of 50 years, they were not entitled for grant of revised pay scales in terms of notification Annexure P-1 and such benefit was wrongly granted in their favour and thus liable to be withdrawn. 8. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. 8. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Consequently, order dated 26.9.2011, Annexure P-7/R-5 and 7.11.2013, Annexure P-9 are quashed and set aside with a direction to the respondents to release the respective amounts of DCRG deducted from the retiral benefits of the petitioners and deposited in the government treasury vide challan which forms part of letter dated 2.9.2013, Annexure P-10 and is at page 47 of the paper book, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioners or their duly authorized representative before respondent No. 2, Director of Horticulture, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, failing which interest at the rate of 9% per annum shall also be payable on the respective amounts qua each petitioner from the due date”. 6. We endorse the view taken by the Single Bench in its judgment dated 21.7.2014, in CWP No.901 of 2014 and since the same applies to the present case as well on all fours and the impugned judgment dated 1.8.2011, being inconformity with the said view, though based on somewhat different reasoning, is upheld and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. 7. The appeal, as also pending CMP No.1690 of 2011 stand disposed of in the above terms.