ORDER : R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. 1. The original respondent in Special Civil Application has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent aggrieved by the order dated 16.9.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 13660 of 2015. 2. The respondent-original petitioner was appointed in the year 1974 in Adult Education Centre run by the government and pursuant to policy dated 30.10.1980 framed by the government, the respondent came to be appointed in regular set up on 27.1.1981 in District Education Committee. On completion of nine years of service, he was extended the benefit of first higher grade pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800 with effect from 30.1.1990 and further second higher grade pay scale was also extended to him with effect from 31.1.2001 and he was put in the second higher grade pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 by order dated 7.8.2002 It is brought to our notice that on attaining the age of superannuation, he has retired from service on 31.5.2010 3. After retirement, the appellant has initiated the proceedings and cancelled the benefit of first and second higher grade scale mainly on the ground that he was untrained teacher and as such he was not entitled to the same. Learned Single Judge, in view of the resolution of the government dated 16.8.1994, particularly with reference to clause 3(32) in which the government has resolved to extend the benefit of higher grade pay scale to the untrained teacher also, allowed the petition by quashing the order of cancellation and withdrawal of the pay scales granted to the original petitioner. 4. In this appeal, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that as the respondent- original petitioner was untrained teacher on the date of his appointment, as such, he was not eligible for first higher grade and second higher grade pay scale and it was rightly cancelled by the appellant. 5. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned counsel Mr. Pujara for the respondent that the order impugned in the petition is ex-facie illegal order. Having extended the benefit of higher grade pay scale to untrained teacher pursuant to government resolution dated 16.8.1994, there is no reason or justification for passing the order under challenge in the petition for cancellation and withdrawal of the pay scales granted to the original petitioner. 6. Having extended the benefit of higher grade pay scale to untrained teacher pursuant to government resolution dated 16.8.1994, there is no reason or justification for passing the order under challenge in the petition for cancellation and withdrawal of the pay scales granted to the original petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the other material on record. It may be true that he was untrained teacher on the date of his appointment but having appointed him by extending the benefit of regularization pursuant to the resolution of the government with effect from 30.10.1980 and continued service till the date of retirement, there appears to be no reason or justification on the part of the appellant for cancellation and withdrawal of the pay scales extended to the original petitioner. It is not in dispute that pursuant to clause 3(32) of the said resolution dated 16.8.1994, the higher pay scales were extended even to untrained teachers. As much as, the respondent-original petitioner is granted the benefit of the first higher pay scale in the year 1990 and the second higher pay scale was granted to him by order dated 17.8.2002, there is no reason for cancelling such an order. In view of the resolution dated 16.8.1994, when the untrained teachers were also extended the benefit of higher pay scales, all the more reason not to pass any order for cancellation against the person who was appointed in the year 1980 and also retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. 7. In view of the above and in view of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any error committed by the learned Single Judge so as to interfere with the said order. This Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly devoid of merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, civil application also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.