JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. This is a bunch of writ petitions, preferred by the Malies, who are and some of them were, working on Malies with the Horticulture Department of the respondents. The petitioners in this writ petition (WPSS No. 3636 of 2017), which is being taken up as leading case have sought for the following reliefs:- “(i) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 28.11.2017, passed by the Respondent No. 2 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) in so far as it relates to the petitioners, and also the order dated 05.12.2017 passed by the Respondent No. 3 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition). (ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioners. (iii) To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) To award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioners.” 2. Out of these bunch of 14 writ petitions, there is slight changes in the relief sought in the Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3602 of 2017, where, besides challenging the impugned order dated 28th November, 2017, the second order which has been put to challenge by the petitioner is that of 3rd December, 2017. Similarly, in the Writ Petition (S/S) No. 136 of 2018, apart from challenging the common orders dated 28th November, 2017 and 5th December, 2017, which have already been referred hereinabove, the petitioner has also challenged the consequential order dated 23rd December, 2017. But, since the issue and the question being common, the minor changes in the relief will not have any bearing on the judgment. Hence they are being decided together. 3. For the purposes of assailing the validity of the impugned action of respondent No. 2, of issuing order dated 28th November, 2017, the petitioners have contended in the writ petition that the writ petitioners, are and were working as Malies with the respondent no. 3 i.e. Director, Horticulture and Food Processing, Uttarakhand, Udhyan Bhawan, Chaubatia, Ranikhet District, Almora. It had been the contention of the petitioners that they had been working regularly against respective substantive posts held by them. 3 i.e. Director, Horticulture and Food Processing, Uttarakhand, Udhyan Bhawan, Chaubatia, Ranikhet District, Almora. It had been the contention of the petitioners that they had been working regularly against respective substantive posts held by them. Their appointments, as against their respective dates, happen to be after due process of selection, and on their completion of one year Mali Diploma from the Horticulture Directorate itself, which is the eligibility for appointment. They are qualified to hold the post and continued in regular service. 4. As a consequence of their appointments, the petitioners contend that they have been working to the utmost satisfaction of all the concerned authorities and all of them enjoyed an unblemished service record to their credit and they have put in over 20-25 years of service each. Their case is that the State, while exercising powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, had framed the Rules called as “The Uttar Pradesh Horticulture and Food Processing Subordinate Service Rules, 1993 (hereinafter to be called as “Rules of 1993”). 5. As per the said Rules of 1993, Rule 17 which reads as under: “17. Procedure for recruitment by promotion – (1) Recruitment by promotion shall be made on the basis of “seniority” subject to the rejection of the unfit through the Selection Committee constituted in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Constitution of Departmental Promotion Committee (for Posts Outside the Purview of the Service Commission) Rules, 1992. (2) The Appointing Authority shall prepare eligibility lists of the candidates in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Promotion by Selection (on Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Eligibility List Rules, 1986 and place the same before the Selection Committee alongwith their character rolls and such other record, pertaining to them, as may be considered proper: Provided that where promotion to any category of posts is to be made from more than one feeder cadres, eligibility lists shall be prepared by arranging the names of the persons in the field of eligibility in order of seniority as determined by the dates of their substantive appointments on their respective posts and where two or more persons were appointed as such on the same date, the persons older in age shall be placed higher in the list. In so arranging the names, the inter se seniority of persons holding the same post shall not be disturbed: Provided further that where posts in the feeder cadres are in different scales of pay names of persons holding posts in higher scales of pay shall be placed in the eligibility lists first and the name of persons holding posts in lower scales of pay shall be placed thereafter. (3) The Selection Committee shall consider the cases of candidates on the basis of records referred to in sub-rule (2), and if it consider necessary, it may interview the candidates also. (4) The Selection Committee shall prepare a list of selected candidates arranged in order of seniority and forward the same to the Appointing Authority.” 6. Rule 17 of Rules of 1993 provides that the Malies thus appointed on Group “D” posts would act as a feeding cadre for promotion to the post of Group “C” i.e. Supervisor Grade-III and for the purposes of promotion under the Rules of 1993, under Rule 5, deals with cadre and source of recruitment, out of total sanctioned cadre strength of Supervisor Grade-III, 20 per cent of the posts to the Supervisor Grade-III, has been made available for promotion from those incumbents who are serving as Mali and are possessing qualification of being a high school and having completed 5 years of service on the first day of the year of recruitment. 7. On scrutiny of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1993, which deals with the cadre, it bifurcates the total cadre into parts, 20 per cent of the posts of Supervisor Grade-III with which this Court is concerned, is not a post which is completely available for direct recruitment, but is to be filled in only by way of promotion. According to the criteria of promotion as against 20 per cent posts, as per Rule 17 of Rules of 1993 as referred in the preceding paras, the criterion is seniority subject to rejection of unfit. 8. Under the Scheme as framed by the State of Uttarakhand in the year 2011 commonly called as “Assured Career Progression Scheme” (in short “ACP”). It provided the grant of the promotional pay-scale to the employees of the State Government on their satisfactory completion of 10 years service entitling for the payment of 1st ACP and grade pay of Rs. 8. Under the Scheme as framed by the State of Uttarakhand in the year 2011 commonly called as “Assured Career Progression Scheme” (in short “ACP”). It provided the grant of the promotional pay-scale to the employees of the State Government on their satisfactory completion of 10 years service entitling for the payment of 1st ACP and grade pay of Rs. 2400; on a completion of 16 years of satisfactory service, entitlement of 2nd ACP with grade pay of Rs. 2800; and on completion of 26 years of satisfactory service, entitlement of the payment of grade pay of Rs. 4600/- 9. By the Government order as issued by the respondent-department, which was an approval of the Finance Department of the Government of Uttarakhand, also took the initiative for enforcing the benefits of the ACP in relation to those employees who are working with the Horticulture Department. Consequently, a Government Order dated 7th October, 2015 was issued (Annexure 1 to the writ petition), the said Government Order No. 760 of 7th October, 2015 aimed to enforce the recommendation of grant of ACP to Class-IV employees of the Horticulture Department. The Government Order referred various government orders which lays norms for grant of benefit of ACP as per the GO No. 770/XXVII(7)(40)/2011 dated 6th November, 2013, it provided for grant of ACPs against post available for promotional posts, it provided that all the employees working in the field including Mali, Halwaha, Head Chaudhary, Parichar and such other employees would be entitled for the benefits of the ACP as enforced by the Government Order issued by the Finance Department being Government Order No. 770/XXVII(7).40(ix)/2011 dated 6th November, 2013. It provided that the malies, working in the department would be entitled for the benefit of the ACP in accordance with the Service Rules and the Government Order dated 6th November, 2013. It provided that the malies, working in the department would be entitled for the benefit of the ACP in accordance with the Service Rules and the Government Order dated 6th November, 2013. The relevant part of the Government Order as contained in para 3 and 4 is quoted hereunder: **3- vr% bl lEcU/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ’k gqvk gS fd m|ku foHkkx ds vUrxZr dk;Zjr~ m|ku foHkkx esa QhYM esa dk;Zjr dkfeZdksa ekyh@gyokgk@gSM pkS/kjh@ifjpj@ekSu ikyd bR;kfn ds dkfeZdksa dks foRr foHkkx ds ‘kklukns’k la[;k&770@ XXVII ¼7½40 (IX) 2011] fnukad 06 uoEcj] 2013 esa nh x;h O;oLFkkUrxZr foHkkxh; lsok fu;ekoyh esa fofgr O;oLFkk ds n`f”Vxr dk;Zokgh dh tk;] vFkkZr~ lsok fu;ekoyh esa fofgr O;oLFkkuqlkj inksUufr ds in dks Li”V djrs gq, ;Fkk fLFkfr ‘krksZa dks iw.kZ djus dh n’kk esa ekfy;ksa dks ,0lh0ih0 dk ykHk fn;k tk;A ftu dkfeZdksa dks ,0lh0ih dk ykHk fn;k tk pqdk gS] foHkkx }kjk mudk Hkh ijh{k.k mDrkuqlkj lsok fu;ekoyh esa fofgr O;oLFkkuqlkj djk fy;k tk;A rnksijkUr foRrh; fu;eksa ds vkyksd esa LØhfuax lfefr dh laLrqfr lfgr chtd lEcfU/kr dks”kkxkjksa dks izkFkfedrk ds vk/kkj ij izsf’kr fd;k tkuk lqfuf’pr djsaA 4- ;g vkns’k foRr foHkkx ds ijke’kZ ls fuxZr fd;k tk jgk gSA** 10. On a certain controversies being raised by the Director, Treasury, Pension and Haqdari, as to why the benefit of the Government Order dated 7th October 2015, has been extended to the Malies. The Director, Treasuries Pension evam Haqdari vide his letter dated 29th June, 2016 made certain queries from Respondent No. 3 as to why benefit of ACP has been given to Malies by Government Order dated 7th October, 2015. The said letter is shown to have been responded by Respondent No. 3 vide his letter dated 13th July, 2016, holding thereof that the employees of Horticulture Department are entitled for the benefit of ACP. According to the petitioners, their case is that the query being raised by the Director, Treasury, Pension and Haqdari, Dehradun vide his letter dated 29th June, 2016 was unfounded, because as per the response submitted by the Director, Horticulture i.e. respondent No. 3 on 13th July, 2016 informing the Director, Treasury that the employees of the Horticulture Department, in particular, the Malies would be entitled for the ACP as the scheme was enforced by the Government Order No. 760 dated 7th October, 2015 to malies which has been issued after the financial approval of State. 11. The petitioners’ case is further that the aforesaid decision of the Director, Horticulture and Food Processing, Uttarakhand dated 13th July, 2016 was communicated to the Director, Treasury, Pension and Haqdari, Dehradun. The clarification as submitted by the respondent No. 3 to the Director, Treasury, Pension and Haqdari, Dehradun, provided that the recruitment of the Malies as Group ‘D’ employees is made under the Rules of 1993 as enforced w.e.f. 19th June, 1993, relating to the Class-IV employees. It has provided that the class-IV employees in the Horticulture Department for the purposes of recruitment are supposed to have a requisite qualification, they have to undergo the statutory training, their posts carries an avenue of promotion to post of supervisor Grade-III which is dependent upon seniority subject to rejection of unfit and their recruitment is dependent upon recommendation of the Selection Committee. It provides that the promotion against 20 per cent posts available for promotion under Rule 5(1) and procedure for promotion is contemplated under Rule 17(1), which provides promotion has to made as per rules called as U.P. Constitution of Departmental Promotion Committee for Post Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission Rules, 1992. 12. On account of the aforesaid conditions, the Director, Horticulture and Food Processing, Uttarakhand, according to petitioners, was rightly of the opinion that the benefits of the ACP would be admissible to the malies. He has further opined that unlike the General Rules applicable to the class-IV employees in the undivided State of Uttar Pradesh, for the purposes of governing the service conditions of the malies working in the Horticulture Department, independent Rules were framed in the year 1993. Hence since being a Special Rule, governing the service conditions of the employees of Horticulture Department, it will have precedence over the general law. It has also established that according to the Government Order dated 24th March, 2011 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Uttarakhand apparent from its clause 2 and 3, they would be entitled for the grant of the ACP. It has also established that according to the Government Order dated 24th March, 2011 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Uttarakhand apparent from its clause 2 and 3, they would be entitled for the grant of the ACP. Accordingly, the Director, Horticulture and Food Processing, Uttarakhand in its communication dated 13th July, 2016 had issued the following directions: **vr% mijksDr izLrj&1 ls 5 rd esa fn;s x;s rF;ksa ,oa ‘kklukns’k la0 770@ XXVII ¼7½@40@ (IX) @2011] fn0 06-11-2013 ,oa iz’kkldh; foHkkx ds ‘kklukns’k la0 760@ XV ¼1½@15@5¼03½@2012 fn0 07-10-2015 ds n`f”Vxr j[krs gq;s ekyh laoxhZ; in/kkjdksa dks 10] 16 ,oa 26 o”kZ dh lsok ij inksUufr in dk xzsM osru Øe’k% : 2000@& ¼i;Zos{kd oxZ&3½ xzsM osru : 2800@& m|ku fujh{kd] oxZ&2* ,oa xzsM osru : 4600@& *T;s”B m|ku fujh{kd oxZ&1* vuqeU; fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa ofj”B dks”kkf/kdkjh vYeksM+k ds lkFk&lkFk vU; tuinksa ds ofj”B dks”kkf/kdkjh ,oa eq[; dks”kkf/kdkjh mRrjk[k.M dks vko’;d funsZ’k nsus dh d`ik dhft,xkA** 13. It is the case of the petitioners that the grant of the ACP, which was enforced for the first time on 8th March, 2011, the benefit of it was not extended to the malies of the Horticulture Department; rather on the other hand, they were paid the grade pay, payable to the next higher post. There was disparity in the enforcement of the grant of the benefits of the ACP, because some Treasuries, they continued to grant the benefits of the ACP to the malies; but, some Treasuries refused to grant the benefit to malies. Consequently, according to the petitioners, the State made a reference to the Treasury through its Director, Finance, State of Uttarakhand to consider the grant of the benefits of ACP, resolve the issue of disparity and to maintain uniformity as extended by the Government Order dated 8th March, 2011. On a reference being made on 29th June, 2016, the Director, Horticulture and Food Processing, Chaubatia, Ranikhet issued the letter dated 13th July, 2016 holding thereof that the benefits of the ACP would be available to the malies since their class-IV post has an avenue of promotion to class-III post. 14. On a reference being made on 29th June, 2016, the Director, Horticulture and Food Processing, Chaubatia, Ranikhet issued the letter dated 13th July, 2016 holding thereof that the benefits of the ACP would be available to the malies since their class-IV post has an avenue of promotion to class-III post. 14. It is the case of the petitioners that despite the fact that the controversy which was being sought to be raised by the Director, Treasury, Pension and Haqdari, Dehradun by the letter dated 29th June, 2016 stood eradicated by the clarification given by the Director, Horticulture dated 13th July, 2016, but still the Director, Treasury, Pension and Haqdari still continued to raise objection pertaining to the applicability of the ACP to the employees of Horticulture Department, in particular, to the malies. 15. To clarify the aforesaid anomaly, it is the case of the petitioners that the State Government had issued yet another Government Order No. 2046/XVI-1/16/5(03)/2012TC-2 dated 4th November, 2016. The subject, which was referred to in the said Government Order, was with regard to the entitlement of the payment of the benefits of the ACP to malies and such other group ‘D’ employees who also enjoyed a source of recruitment to a superior post by way of promotion. The subject, which was referred to in the said Government Order, was with regard to the entitlement of the payment of the benefits of the ACP to malies and such other group ‘D’ employees who also enjoyed a source of recruitment to a superior post by way of promotion. Government order dated 4th November, 2016 reads as under: **izs”kd] Vhde flag iaokj] vij lfpo] mRrjk[k.M ‘kklu Lksok esa] funs'kd] m|ku ,oa [kk+| izlaLdj.k mRrjk[k.M] m|ku Hkou] PkkScfV;k& jkuh[ksr m|ku ,oa js’ke vuqHkkx&1 nsgjknwu] fnukad% 04 uoEcj] 2016 fo”k;% m|ku foHkkx ds fodkl ‘kk[kk@[kk| izlaLdj.k ‘kk[kk@ekSu ikyu ‘kk[kk ds vUrxZr ekyh laoxZ@’kks/k ‘kk[kk ifjpj laoxZ ds dkfeZdksa dks inksUUfr ds in dk xzsM osru vuqeU; fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esaA egksn;] mi;qZDr fo”k;d mRrjk[k.M QhYM rduhdh jkT; deZpkjh la?k m|ku ,oa [kk| izlaLdjk foHkkx] mRrjk[k.M }kjk vius izR;kosnu fnuakd&23-08-2016 ds ek/;e ls ‘kklukns’k la[;k&760] fnuakd&07 vDVwcj] 2015 ds Øe esa dfrij; dks”kkxkjksa }kjk fØ;kUo;u u fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa dks”kkxkjksa dks ‘kklukns’k ds vuqikyu ds funsZ’k fuxZr fd;s tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gS] ftlds Øe esa vkids }kjk vius i= la0&403@nks&34¼4½@2016&17] fnukad&02 flrEcj] 2016 ds ek/;e ls izdj.k ds lEcU/k esa O;k[;k miyC/k djk;h x;h gSA 2& bl lEcU/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ’k gqvk gS fd m|ku foHkkx ds fodkl ‘kk[kk@[kk+| izlaLdj.k ‘kk[kk@ekSu ikyu ‘kk[kk ds vUrxZr ekyh laoxZ@’kks/k ‘kk[kk ifjpj laoxZ ds dkfeZdksa ds ‘kklukns’k la[;k&770@ XXVII ¼7½40 (IX) 2011 fnukad&06 uoEcj] 2013 ds vuqlj ,’;ksMZ dSjf;j izksxs’ku dh iwoZ O;oLFkk ds LFkku ij inksUufr ds in dk xzsM osru vuqeU; fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa ‘kklukns’k la[;k&760@ XVI ¼1½@15@5¼03½@2012] Vh0lh0&2] fnukad&07 vDVwcj] 2015 ds }kjk iwoZ esa gh vkidks funsZf’kr fd;k tk pqdk gSA ;g Hkh Li”V fd;k tkuk gS fd mDr ‘kklukns’k foRr foHkkx ds ijke’kZ ds vuqlkj tkjh fd;k x;k gSA vr% iz’uxr izdj.k ds lEcU/k esa mDr of.kZr ‘kklukns’kuqlkj vfxze dk;Zokgh djus dk d”V djsaA Hkonh;] ¼Vhde flag iaokj½ vij lfpo** izfrfyfi & fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko’;d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf”kr%& 1- funs’kd] dks’kkxkj ,oa foRr lsok,sa] 23& y{eh jksM+] Mkyuokyk] nsgjknwu dks bl vk’k; ls izsf”kr fd ‘kklukns’k fnukad ds vuqlkj m|ku foHkkx ds fodkl ‘kk[kk@[kk| izlaLdj.k ‘kk[kk@ekSu ikyu ‘kk[kk ds vUrxZr ekyh laoxZ@’kks/k ‘kk[kk ifjpj laoxZ ds dkfeZdksa dks inksUufr ds in dk xzsM osru vuqeU; fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa vko’;d dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus gsrq leLr dks’kkxkjksa dks funsZf’kr djus dk d”V djsaA** 16. The Additional Secretary to the State, after considering the Government Order No. 770 dated 6th November, 2013 and the Government Order No. 760 dated 7th October, 2015, which was issued after its consultation with the Finance Department, it was held out that the malies would be entitle for the grant of benefits of the ACP as enforced by the Government Order No. 760 dated 7th October, 2015. Accordingly, by the Government Order dated 4th November, 2016 was issued by the Additional Secretary. 17. As a result of the Government Order No. 770 dated 6th November, 2013, 760 dated 7th October, 2015 and No. 2046 dated 4th November, 2016, the Director, Treasury, Pension and Haqdari, Dehradun issued an order dated 7th December, 2016 to all the Chief/Senior Treasury Officers of the State of Uttarakhand by virtue of which it has been directed, to grant the benefit of ACP to all the employees of the Horticulture Department. In relation thereto, a direction was issued by the Director, Treasury, Pension, and Haqdari, Dehradun, whereby it was held out that in view of the clarifications made by the previous Government Orders, which have already been dealt with hereinabove, it was held that the malies would be entitled for the ACPs in pursuance to the Government Order No. 760 dated 7th October, 2015. 18. It is the case of the petitioners that after the aforesaid exercise being undertaken, the State Government enforced the implications of the Government Order No. 760 dated 7th October, 2015, 4th November, 2016 and letter dated 7th December, 2016, after considering all pros and cons over the controversies and by an order issued in the year 2016, making it enforceable w.e.f. 1st November, 2013 granted the grade pay of Rs. 2400, Rs. 2800 and Rs. 4600 as admissible to be paid for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd ACP respectively. Consequently, petitioner nos. 1 to 7 were granted the benefits of the grade pay of Rs. 2400/- for the 1st ACP; petitioner nos. 8 to 10 were granted the benefits of the grade pay of Rs. 3800/- for the 2nd ACP; and for the remaining petitioners were granted 3rd ACP with a grade pay of Rs. 4600/-. Thus, all the petitioners have been granted the benefits of ACP w.e.f. 1st January, 2013. 19. 2400/- for the 1st ACP; petitioner nos. 8 to 10 were granted the benefits of the grade pay of Rs. 3800/- for the 2nd ACP; and for the remaining petitioners were granted 3rd ACP with a grade pay of Rs. 4600/-. Thus, all the petitioners have been granted the benefits of ACP w.e.f. 1st January, 2013. 19. Owing to the aforesaid backdrop, perhaps there remains no issue of debate that each of the petitioners of respective writ petitions have completed their requisite period of service entitling them for the grant of the benefits of the ACP before 1st November, 2013, and therefore, as per the scheme of ACP as enforced by the Government Order No. 760 dated 7th October, 2015 and subsequent Government Orders, there is no dispute that the petitioners were not entitled for the grant of the benefits of the ACP, on the basis of the Government Orders issued from time to time and the directives issued by Director, Treasury, Pension evam Haqdari. 20. It is the case of the petitioners that once the benefits of ACP has been granted w.e.f. 1st January, 2013, and the entitlement for the grant of the benefits of the ACP under the Government Orders issued by the State after the approval of the Finance Department has been made, it takes the shape of a property as defined under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Hence, none of the petitioners, after the grant of the benefits of the ACP could be deprived of the same, by a unilateral decision without adhering to the principles of natural justice, before passing an order having civil consequence on the financial liabilities of the petitioners, who are employees of lower strata. 21. It is the case of the petitioners that while the benefits of the ACPs were being continued to be granted to the petitioners w.e.f. 1st November, 2013, they were surprised to learn about the impugned order dated 28th November, 2017, which was a general order, issued by responded No. 2 by virtue of which it was provided that the benefits of the ACP, which has been wrongly given to the petitioners would stand withdrawn and further direction was issued to revise the salary, and further it also contained a direction that the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioners and such other employees should be recovered within one month. The inference which could be drawn from the reading of the impugned order dated 28th November, 2017 was that the respondent No. 2 has passed an order, based on the fact that the promotion as available to the petitioners to the post of supervisory grade-III since it is based on seniority-cum-merits, they would not be entitled for the ACP Scheme. This reasoning which has been assigned by the impugned Government Order dated 28th November, 2017 is absolutely contrary to law and records for the reason, which has been argued by petitioner is that as per the Service Rules of 1993 applicable to Malies, the promotion is not based upon, “seniority-cum-merits”, but rather it is exclusively made on the basis of seniority, subject to rejection of unfit, and merit was not the criteria for promotion. Hence, the contention of the petitioners is that the very basis of the Government Order dated 28th November, 2017 was non-existent contrary to rule as applicable to petitioners governing their service conditions. For the purposes of brevity, Rule 17 of the U.P. Horticulture and Food Processing Group-B Service Rules, 1993 dealing with the criteria of the promotion under Rules of 1993 has already been quoted above. 22. As a consequence of the Government Order dated 28th November, 2017, the respondent No. 4 proceeded to pass the consequential order dated 5th December, 2017, by which it has been directed to constitute a Committee for re-examination of the grant of the benefits of the ACP to the petitioners. The case of the petitioners is that the promotion of the petitioners under the rules is contemplated under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1993, it is based on seniority, subject to rejection of unfit and not on the basis of seniority-cum-merits, hence the restrictions imposed by the Government Order dated 28th November, 2017, would not be attracted. Petitioners’ logic is that any subsequent Government Order for taking an action as a consequence thereto would be contrary to the law. Hence, the direction which has been issued, directing the Treasury Officers for preparing the revised bill and for releasing of the salary based on the revised bill only, is arbitrary. Petitioners’ logic is that any subsequent Government Order for taking an action as a consequence thereto would be contrary to the law. Hence, the direction which has been issued, directing the Treasury Officers for preparing the revised bill and for releasing of the salary based on the revised bill only, is arbitrary. Once the post of Mali under Rules of 1993, provides two sources of its appointments i.e. by direct recruitment, and by promotion by virtue of Rule 5, the basis of the impugned order assigned in the order dated 28th November, 2017, is not available to the respondents to pass the impugned order for withdrawing the rights for the grant of the benefits of ACP which has accrued to the petitioners w.e.f. 1st January, 2013 when they had completed the requisite period of service and they were granted the benefit by the respondents. 23. The contention of the petitioners is that as a consequence of the impugned action, no recovery could be directed to be made for the reason that the financial benefit which has been accrued to the petitioners is based on the self sustained enforcement of the decision rendered by the State and once an amount is paid, it constitutes to be a property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, and any direction issued to recover the same would infringe the Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution and the same cannot be done until and unless due and proper opportunity of hearing is provided to the petitioners, prior to take an action. 24. This Court, while entertaining the writ petition and calling for a counter affidavit, connected the present writ petition with Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3533 of 2017 and stayed the recovery of the amount in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court as reported in 2015(4) SCC 334 in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer). 25. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on 6th March, 2018 and by respondent no. 2 on 26th May, 2018. On scrutiny of the counter affidavit of respondent no. 2 i.e. the Additional Secretary, Finance, State of Uttarakhand, he has made the following averments on which the petitioner has placed reliance and made reference too as is contained in para 4, 5, 13 and 14 which are quoted hereunder: “4. 2 on 26th May, 2018. On scrutiny of the counter affidavit of respondent no. 2 i.e. the Additional Secretary, Finance, State of Uttarakhand, he has made the following averments on which the petitioner has placed reliance and made reference too as is contained in para 4, 5, 13 and 14 which are quoted hereunder: “4. That the government order dated 28.11.2017, which was sent to all the Head of Department/District Magistrates/Commissioner and Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary/Secretary/In-charge Secretary with the purpose that if any subordinate employees paid excess payment/benefit under the scheme of ACP and other allowance has been provided and there are some illegality then to examine the excess amount and adjusted in the next month salary and balance salary of the concerned employees. 5. That in the present matter, it seems that the Director Horticulture not examine the government order, either concerned with the level of the government, thereafter some personnel preferred the writ petition before this Hon’ble Court, it is further clarified that the concerned department not hear the petitioners and in the above matter relinquish the respondent no. 2 in the present writ petition, there is no fault at the part of the respondent no. 2. 13. That the contents of para no. 28 of the writ petition are not admitted, hence denied. It is submitted that as per the government order dated 28.11.2017 nothing mentioned about the Horticulture Department, neither mentioned any other department in the government order dated 28.11.2017, the said order has been addressed all the Head of Department of the State/District Magistrates/Commissioner and Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary/Secretary/In-charge Secretary with the reason that if any subordinate personnel have been provided the benefit of ACP and other allowance in fixation of their salary, if point out any error after due examination the excess pay salary be adjusted in the further months salary and the information should be available to the Government, but the Director, Horticulture Ranikhet, it seems that without examining the order and without concerned with the level of the government, passed the order, by which the some of the employees preferred the writ petition before this Hon’ble Court and without hearing the petitioner by the concerned department. 14. That the contents of para no. 29 of the writ petition are legal in nature, hence need no comments. The detailed reply has already been given in the preceding paragraphs of this affidavit. 14. That the contents of para no. 29 of the writ petition are legal in nature, hence need no comments. The detailed reply has already been given in the preceding paragraphs of this affidavit. In view of the above facts the respondent no. 2 be relinquish from the present writ petition. It is very important to prayed to this Hon’ble Court, the respondent No. 2 has not issued any order to recover the paid amount from the Horticulture Employees, the Director, Horticulture by his own motion issued the further order by which the petitioners are aggrieved, the present deponent has no concerned with the recovery order of the Horticulture Director. In view of above, the writ petition of the petitioners is devoid of merit and same is liable to be dismissed.” 26. On scrutiny of the stand taken by the respondent no. 2, it could be inferred that the Government Order dated 28th November, 2017 was rather a general Government Order and it was not in relation to the Horticulture Department as the said Government Order does not find any reference to the Horticulture Department, which was required to be taken independently because the benefits in relation to grant of ACP to employees of Horticulture department was taken at later stage separately, and also because this aspect has to be dealt with in the light of the fact that the service conditions of class-IV employees of the State are governed by a general set of Service Rules, whereas the service conditions of malies are governed by the Special Rules of 1993, and hence, both group ‘D’ employees i.e. of the State Government and that of the Horticulture Department cannot be kept on a common pedestal, as especial will prevail over the general as services are governed by independent rules. 27. Looking to the averments made in para 5 of the counter affidavit of respondent No. 2, the basis of the stand of the respondent No. 2 is that wrongful decision has been taken by the respondent no. 2, by wrongful interpretation of the Government Order, meaning thereby no recovery as a consequence of the order dated 5th December, 2012 could have been issued because admittedly, petitioners are not any way instrumental in the grant of the benefits of the ACP under the Government Order dated 7th October, 2015. 2, by wrongful interpretation of the Government Order, meaning thereby no recovery as a consequence of the order dated 5th December, 2012 could have been issued because admittedly, petitioners are not any way instrumental in the grant of the benefits of the ACP under the Government Order dated 7th October, 2015. Its not the case of the respondent that petitioners ever influenced the decision making process or misrepresented in getting benefit of ACP as enforced by the Government Order in Horticulture Department. 28. There is another aspect which is to be considered. According to the counter affidavit, it is an admitted case of the respondent No. 2 that the Government Order dated 28th November, 2017 was general in nature, since by its absence of it being referred to the Horticulture Department, and since in the absence of there being a reference being made to the Head of the Department of the Horticulture, at least, reasonably, nothing adverse could be inferred against the petitioners. Hence the respondent No. 2 has contended that he is not at all responsible for the grant of the benefits of the ACP. 29. For the purposes of deciding the matter, it is necessary to bifurcate the decision into two parts:- (1) The entitlement of grant of ACP to the malies under the Rules of 1993 and; (2) As to whether the amount already paid under the Government Order dated 7th October, 2015 w.e.f. 1st January, 2013 could at all be directed to be recovered by the impugned direction dated 5th December, 2017. 30. Let me deal with the first issue. Admittedly, at the time when the decision was taken to grant the benefits of the ACP, based on the Government Order dated 7th October, 2015, there was a direction issued by respondent No. 3 himself on 13th July, 2016 after considering the impact of the Rules of 1993, read with Government Order dated 7th October, 2015 whereby after dealing with the source of recruitment contained under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1993, and the criteria of promotion under Rules 17 of the Rules of 1993, the respondent no. 3 held for the purposes of promotion since the same is contemplated to be made against 20 per cent of seats available to be filled in on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit based on the criteria laid down under U.P. Departmental Promotion Committee (For the post outside the purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1992, the petitioners would be entitle for the grant of ACP. 31. The issue pertaining to the entitlement for the grant of ACP. Though much of the contentions have already been dealt with above part of the judgment, but still it is reiterated that the services of mali since are governed by the Special Rules of 1993, as applicable to the group ‘D’ employees of the Horticulture Department, and also coupled with the fact that only the Government Orders dated 7th October, 2015, the directions given by the Director, Horticulture on 13th July, 2016, the Government Order dated 4th November, 2016 and the directives issued by the Director, Treasury, Pension and Haqdari, Dehradun to all the Treasury Officers for paying the benefits of ACP vide letter No. 784 dated 7th December, 2016. In its composite and harmonious reading, it shows that the respondents have consciously made the benefit extended to the petitioners, who are the malies, working with the respondent departments. 32. Let me deal with second issue. What is relevant further that in pursuance to the chain of decisions taken was after due approval by the Finance Department, Govt. of Uttarakhand, at least in the light of the directives given in the Government Order dated 4th November, 2016, the petitioners cannot be held to be responsible at all for the grant of the benefits of the ACP, more particularly, when the same had been enforced, in particular, in Horticulture Department, which also carries a certain percentage of post to be available for promotion from class-IV to class-III. It is not the case of the respondents that the grant of the ACP as has been availed by the petitioners, was by virtue of any fraud played by them or by misrepresenting their claim on the respondents. As such, no recovery could be made from them. 33. It is not the case of the respondents that the grant of the ACP as has been availed by the petitioners, was by virtue of any fraud played by them or by misrepresenting their claim on the respondents. As such, no recovery could be made from them. 33. Another relevant factum which is to be taken into consideration is by the impugned order dated 28th November, 2017 by virtue of which the directives have been issued to stop the payment of the ACP and to recover the excess amount from the employees, would not be applicable, for the reasons that it has not taken into consideration the various Government Orders and the directives issued by the Director, Treasury, Pension and Haqdari, Dehradun bringing the malies within the ambit of the ACP Scheme, as enforced by virtue of Government Order dated 7th October, 2015. 34. The case of the petitioners, is that the amount sought to be recovered by the impugned order (and by such different impugned orders in other bunch of writ petitions) runs contrary to the principles of law laid down by His Lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 , which has laid down the following broader principles which are required to be strictly adhered with and the factors which are to be considered and followed before resorting to the procedure permissible under law for recovery of an amount already paid to an employee bonafidely by the employer, without there being any influence, misrepresentation or fraud exercised by the employee. 35. The contention of the petitioners is that in the judgment of Rafiq Masih’s case (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court in its para 18, their Lordships have drawn some wider principles which are required to be followed for recovery of the amount already paid to an employee taking into consideration the hardship which will befall on the employee from whom the recovery is being sought to be made at a belated stage in particular these employees belonging to lower strata without there being any fault on their part, and that too from those employees belonging to category sustaining themselves with limited means. The wider principles as laid down have been as under:- (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ services). The wider principles as laid down have been as under:- (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ services). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover. 36. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the action taken after considerable long period by the Respondents making an effort to recover an amount allegedly paid in excess is non equivotous. 37. According to para 3 of the Government Order impugned in the writ petition, those employees have been brought outside the ambit of the grant of the benefits of ACP, are those, who as per the intentions contained in para 3 of the Government Order would be excluded, whose promotion is contemplated based on seniority-cum-merits, subject to rejection of unfit. Rather to the contrary para 3 of the Government Order provides that for all those posts where the promotion is contemplated based on the seniority subject to rejection of unfit, the benefit of ACP would be payable to them. What is remarkable further is that on scrutiny of the impugned Government Order dated 28th November, 2017, as a matter of fact, it seems that respondent No. 1 has not taken into consideration the various Government Orders by virtue of which the benefit of the 3rd ACP was enforced to the Horticulture Department and as a matter of fact, the Government Order dated 28th November, 2017, was an order in relation to the other Government Departments, as it does not find any reference to the Horticulture Department and to the Government Orders by virtue of which the ACP has been enforced. 38. 38. For the reasons above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned Government Order dated 28th November, 2017 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) and a consequential order dated 5th December, 2017 passed by respondent No. 3 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) would stand quashed, as far as it relates to the Group ‘D’ employees of the Horticulture Department (i.e. the petitioners only), whose services are governed by the Rules called as “U.P. Horticulture and Food Processing Subordinate Service Rules, 1993”. Thus, the petitioners would be entitled for the benefits of ACP as made applicable by Government Order No. 760 dated 7th October, 2015. 39. Writ petitions are allowed subject to above conditions. However, there would be no order as to costs.