JUDGMENT : INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J. 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) release the entire pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. to the petitioner on the basis of last pay drawn of the post of Private Secretary a long with interest on delayed payment @ 18% per annum. (i-a) quash and set aside the order dated 27.08.2016. (ii) make payment of arrears of DA to the petitioner for the month of January and February, 2015. (iii) release payment of actual benefits of increments for the period from 1986 to 2001 and arrears thereof and interest thereon for the delayed payment @ 18% per annum. (iv) exemplary cost may also be imposed on the respondents on account of harassment and mental agony and financial distress suffered by the petitioner after his retirement. (v) pass such further order or directions in favour of the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of LDC-cum-Steno Typist in the Office of Advocate-on-Record for the State of Rajasthan Supreme Court, New Delhi vide Government order dated 13.09.1978. Later, the petitioner was confirmed on the post of LDC vide Government order dated 29.04.1982. It was further submitted that one post of Stenographer was created by the Government of Rajasthan in the Office of Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court, New Delhi and after consultation with the Deputy Secretary General Administration Department, DOP and Office Management when none was available for appointment in the said Office at Delhi, a decision was taken by the Law Department to conduct a test for recruitment by inviting applications at Supreme Court, New Delhi. In pursuance thereof, the post was notified and applications were invited. The then Director Litigation decided to conduct the test and it was ordered that the present petitioner may also be intimated about the same. Thereafter, the shorthand and typing test was conducted at New Delhi on 04.11.1985, wherein the petitioner qualified for being appointed on the post of Stenographer Grade-II and accordingly he was appointed on ad-hoc basis as Stenographer vide order dated 08.11.1985. Thereafter, the shorthand and typing test was conducted at New Delhi on 04.11.1985, wherein the petitioner qualified for being appointed on the post of Stenographer Grade-II and accordingly he was appointed on ad-hoc basis as Stenographer vide order dated 08.11.1985. It was further submitted that subsequently vide order dated 29.04.1998, the petitioner was regularized under the provisions of Proviso 8-A of Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1957”) as such his appointment on the post of Stenographer was in accordance with law. 4. It was further submitted that vide order dated 27.11.1998, the order dated 29.04.1998 was modified directing that the petitioner would be entitled for annual grade increments of the post of Stenographer from the year 1986. Later on the petitioner was appointed as Private Secretary in the Office of Advocate General of the State on ad-hoc basis vide detailed reasoned note-sheet dated 12.03.2001 and order dated 13.03.2001. The petitioner was confirmed on the post of Private Secretary on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee on 12.01.2006 and retired from the said post in substantive capacity vide order dated 28.02.2015 of the then Advocate General. 5. Learned counsel submitted that after retirement when the petitioner was not paid the retiral benefits, leave encashment etc. he served notice for demand of justice and thereafter, preferred the instant writ petition claiming the reliefs, as quoted hereinabove. It was contended that surprisingly vide order dated 27.08.2016, the cadre of the petitioner was changed treating him in the cadre of LDC/UDC/OA/OS and he was treated as Office Superintendent. Accordingly, the pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 20,210/- on the day of his retirement i.e. 28.02.2015, whereas the petitioner was drawing Rs. 33,360/- at the time of his retirement. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that he had discharged the duties of the post of Stenographer and Private Secretary for about 16 years and 15 years respectively till his retirement without any departmental inquiry, but only on the basis of audit objection he has been reverted on the post of Office Superintendent. It is not the case of the petitioner that he obtained appointment by suppressing material facts, but the respondents themselves have appointed him on the post of Stenographer and then Private Secretary and he retired from the said post. It is not the case of the petitioner that he obtained appointment by suppressing material facts, but the respondents themselves have appointed him on the post of Stenographer and then Private Secretary and he retired from the said post. Thus, the respondents are under obligation to release him the pensionary benefits, leave encashment etc. of the post of Private Secretary w.e.f. 01.03.2015 alongwith interest as per Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Pensions Rule, 1996 (for short “the Rules of 1996”) so also the annual grade increments in terms of the order dated 27.11.1998. Furthermore, the petitioner was possessing requisite qualification on the date of appointment, which was made after following the due process of law and that too against a sanctioned and vacant post and there is no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel further argued that even assuming that the appointment of the petitioner was irregular, then also after a period of 31 years no reversion can be made and in this regard he has placed reliance on the judgments in Dr. M.S. Mudhol and Another vs. S.D. Haleakar and Others, (1993) 3 SCC 591 , M.A. Hameed vs. State of A.P. and Another, (2001) 9 SCC 261 and Tridip Kumar Dinaal and Others vs. State of West Bengal and Others, (2009) 1 SCC 768 . 8. It was further submitted that since the petitioner was appointed as Stenographer and then Private Secretary in substantive capacity, therefore, the lien of the petitioner was created on the said post and after retirement his lien cannot be terminated and he cannot be reverted. To this submission, reliance was placed on the judgments delivered in the cases of Ram Lai Khurana (Dead) by LRs. vs. State of Punjab and Others, (1989) 4 SCC 99 and Trivedi Shankar Saxena vs. State of U.P. and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 524. It was then contended that there is gross violation of the principles of natural justice and even no enquiry was conducted before the reversion of the petitioner to the post of Office Superintendent. 9. In support of his prayer to grant interest on the pensionary benefits, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Surendra Mohan Saxena vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2000 (3) WLC 174 . 9. In support of his prayer to grant interest on the pensionary benefits, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Surendra Mohan Saxena vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2000 (3) WLC 174 . A prayer was, therefore, made to allow the present writ petition and grant reliefs to the petitioner, as claimed above. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that initially the petitioner was appointed as LDC on ad hoc basis and later confirmed on the said post. Further, he was promoted as Stenographer Grade-II also on ad hoc basis. The entry level of the petitioner was LDC but on account of his irregular promotion on the post of Stenographer Grade-II, the Inspection Department, Rajasthan raised an objection to the same and also objected to his promotion on the post of Private Secretary which was made on ad hoc basis on working arrangements in the pay scale of Rs. 9000-300-14000 and recommended for recovery of extra payment made to the petitioner. It was further asserted that when the petitioner submitted his documents for sanction of provisional pension, his fixation was made based on his appointment on the post of LDC. 11. It was then asserted that the dispute relating to promotion and annual grade increments is covered within the scope of the Rules of 1957 and the inspection was made by the Department as per the provisions of the above Rules of 1957. As such, the petitioner's promotion was not in accordance with the rules. It was also contended that the case of the petitioner for provisional pension was considered and it was decided to fix his provisional pension considering his appointment on the post of LDC and vide order dated 27.08.2016, which is impugned in the present writ petition, the petitioner was deemed to be retired from the post of Office Superintendent as per the Rules of 1957 following the promotion channel. 12. It was then submitted that since the petitioner's promotion on the post of Stenographer Grade-II was on ad hoc basis and thereafter on the post of Private Secretary also on ad hoc basis as working arrangement, therefore, he was deemed to be retired from the post of Office Superintendent in the Pay Scale of 9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 3600/-. 3600/-. It was submitted that as the petitioner was already paid the amount treating him retired from the post of Private Secretary, therefore, the respondents are liable to recover the difference amount from petitioner, which comes to around Rs. 26 lacs. 13. It was also contended that various committees were constituted by the learned Advocate General for conducting work in the office and the case of the petitioner was referred to the Administrative Committee by the learned Advocate General. However, the said committee could not decide the matter and it was again referred to another Committee, which submitted its report to the learned Advocate General on 10.08.2021, the operative portion whereof reads as under:- “Thus in view of the aforesaid indisputable factual aspects of the case I am of the view that without going into depth to fix accountability of said promotion of the petitioner from LDC to Stenographer with consequential benefits, it would be prudent sensible to re-determine all service benefits including fixation on promotional post of LDC Cadre with further promotion (if any) or lieu thereof benefit of selection scale etc. of the petitioner from the date when he was wrongly promoted as Stenographer from the post of LDC till his retirement and after deducting the said determined amount out of total amount paid to him from date of promotion as Stenographer till his retirement to balance difference amount may be recovered from his post retirement benefits. So far as guidelines Set at rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih is concerned, in this regard am of the view that since the petitioner is not holding post falls under “Low Paid Employee” therefore said guidelines does not come in the way and can be recovered being paid to received by the petitioner without his entitlement because he could not have promoted from the LDC Cadre to the post of Stenographer and therefore he was obviously not entitled for monetary service benefits of the post of Stenographer and of higher promoted post thereafter.” 14. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the judgments rendered in the cases of Secretary State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , A. Uma Rani vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies and Others, (2004) 7 SCC 112 , R.N. Nanjundappa vs. T. Thimmiah and Another, 1972 SCR 799 , Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. vs. Pushpa Srivastava, (1993) 1 LLJ 190 (SC) and M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. Bhopal vs. Nanuram Yadav and Others, (2007) 8 SCC 264 . It was, therefore, prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed as such. 15. A reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, the Director, Pension and Pensioners Welfare Department, Government of Rajasthan, stating therein that when the pension case of the petitioner was received to the department, on scrutiny thereof number of deficiencies were found and for removing the same, matter was forwarded back to the parent department. It is further stated that despite several reminders, pension case is not yet received after removal of the defects and as soon as the same is received from the parent department, after scrutiny thereof and finding it proper in all respects, requisite orders shall be issued immediately. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. 17. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. 17. Admittedly, the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of LDC-cum-Steno Typist in the Office Advocate-on-Record for the State of Rajasthan, Supreme Court, New Delhi by the Law Department, Government of Rajasthan vide order dated 13.09.1978 (Annexure-1), which is reproduced as under:- ^^jktLFkku ljdkj U;k; foHkkx la[;k% iŒ 34¼1½ U;k;@73 t;iqj] fnukad 13-09-1978 vkKk Jh Ánhi dqekj flag iq= Jh jkey[ku flag] fnYyh dks ,MoksdsV vku fjdkMZ QkWj jktLFkku] lqÁhe dksVZ] ubZ fnYyh ds dk;kZy; esa dfu"B fyfid ,oa LVsuks VkbZfiLV ds in ij osru J`a[kyk 355&10&415&15&550&20&570 esa lkekU; HkRrksa ds lkFk fnukad 1-7-1978 ls ¼ftl fnu ls mUgksaus dk;ZHkkj lEHkkyk gS½ 3 ekg dh vof/k ds fy, vLFkkbZ :i ls fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gSA Jh Ánhi dqekj flag dks LVsuks dk vuqHko u gksus ds QyLo:i mUgsa 25@& :i;s fo'ks"k osru ns; ugha gksxkA vkKk ls ,lMh@& ¼egsUæ Hkw"k.k 'kekZ½ 'kklu lfpo Áfrfyfi lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq Ásf"kr gS%& ¼1½ egkys[kkdkj] jktLFkku t;iqjA ¼2½ dks"kkf/kdkjh] jktLFkku] t;iqjA ¼3½ ,MoksdsV vku fjdkMZ QkWj jktLFkku 34] yk;lZ pSEclZ] lqÁhe dksVZ] ubZ fnYyh] muds i= fnukad 9-8-1978 ds lUnHkZ esaA ¼4½ Jh Ánhi dqekj flag ekQZr ,MoksdsV vkWu fjdkMZ QkWj jktLFkku 34] yk;lZ pSEclZ lqÁhe dksVZ] ubZ fnYyhA ¼5½ O;fDrxr i=koyhA ¼6½ ys[kk 'kk[kk] U;k; foHkkx ¼7½ xkMZ QkbZyA ,lMh@& mi&'kklu lfpoA** Thereafter he was confirmed on the post of LDC vide order dated 29.04.1982 (Annexure-2), issued by the Law Department, Government of Rajasthan. 18. Subsequently, one post of Stenographer was created by the Government of Rajasthan in the Office of Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court, New Delhi and it was decided by the Law Department to conduct the test for recruitment on the post Stenographer by inviting applications. After notifying the said post, applications were invited and its intimation was also given to the petitioner. On 04.11.1985, the shorthand and typing test was conducted by the then Director Litigation, where the petitioner was found to have qualified for being appointed on the post of Stenographer Grade-II. Consequently the petitioner was appointed as Stenographer on ad hoc basis vide order dated 08.11.1985 (Annexure-6). On 04.11.1985, the shorthand and typing test was conducted by the then Director Litigation, where the petitioner was found to have qualified for being appointed on the post of Stenographer Grade-II. Consequently the petitioner was appointed as Stenographer on ad hoc basis vide order dated 08.11.1985 (Annexure-6). Later vide order dated 29.04.1998 (Annexure-7), issued by the Law and Legal Affairs Department, Government of Rajasthan, the petitioner was regularized on the post of Stenographer Grade-II in view of the provisions contained in Proviso 8A of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1957 in the following terms: ^^jktLFkku ljdkj fof/k ,oa fof/kd dk;Z foHkkx ¼jktdh; okndj.k½ Øekad% 34¼1½ U;k;@74@ikVZ&1 t;iqj] fnukad 29 vÁSy] 1998 vkns'k Jh Ánhi dqekj flag LVsuksxzkQj ¼vaxzsth½ dk;kZy; egkf/koDrk] jktLFkku t;iqj dh lsok;sa jktLFkku v/khuLFk dk;kZy; ea=kykf;d lsok fu;e 1957 ds fu;e 7 ds ijUrqd 8&, ds vuqlkj 40 o"kZ dh vk;q ÁkIr dj ysus ds QyLo:i bl fu;e esa fufgr xfr ijh{kk 'kh?kzfyfid o vaxzsth VkbZi dh vkt fnukad 29-4-1998 dks yh xbZ ftlesa lQy gksus ij p;u gksus ls vkt fnukad 29-4-1998 ls 'kh?kzfyfid xzsM&2 ds in ij fu;fer fd;k tkrk gSA Jh Ánhi dqekj flag dks lsok fu;eu dh frfFk ls ,d o"kZ iwjk gksus ij fu;ekuqlkj okf"kZd osru o`f} ns; gksxhA ,lMh@& gLrk{kj la;qDr fof/k ijke'khZ ,oa funs'kd] jktdh; okndj.k Áfrfyfi lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq Ásf"kr gS%& ¼1½ futh lfpo] fof/k lfpo egksn;] jktLFkku] t;iqjA ¼2½ jktdh; vf/koDrk] jktLFkku] t;iqjA ¼3½ egkf/koDrk] jktLFkku] t;iqjA ¼4½ Jh Ánhi dqekj flag] 'kh?kzfyfid xzsM&2 ¼vaxzsth½ dk;kZy; egkf/koDrk] t;iqjA ¼5½ ys[kk 'kk[kk] dk;kZy; jktdh; egkf/koDrk] t;iqjA ¼6½ jf{kr i=koyhA ,lMh@& gLrk{kj la;qDr fof/k ijke'khZ ,oa funs'kd] jktdh; okndj.kA** As a matter of fact, the petitioner was recruited on the post of Stenographer in accordance with the Rules. 19. Further vide order dated 27.11.1998 (Annexure-8), a decision was taken to grant annual grade increments of the post of Stenographer to the petitioner w.e.f. 1986. The above order reads thus:- “GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, RAJASTHAN No. AG/Estt./98 OFFICE ORDER Since Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh, Stenographer has been made substantive under Rule 7 (8A) Rajasthan Subordinate Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957, he is entitled to be declared substantive w.e.f. 8.11.1985 in the cadre of Stenographer, consequently in view of Rule 27 (II-b) of the said Rules of 1957, in partial modification of the order no. 34(l)/Jud./74/Part-I dated 29.04.1998. 34(l)/Jud./74/Part-I dated 29.04.1998. The arrears of Annual Grade Increment of Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh, Stenographer due from the year 1986 is hereby released. This order is in conformity with the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court in scores judgments that once appointment is given in regular pay scale than annual grade increment cannot be withheld. Sd/- (B.P. Agrawal) Advocate General, Rajasthan, Jaipur.” 20. Subsequently, vide order dated 13.03.2001 (Annexure-10) the petitioner came to be promoted to the post of Private Secretary on ad hoc basis as working arrangement in the Office of Advocate General, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Later on, he was confirmed on the said post vide order dated 12.01.2006 on the recommendations of the DPC. 21. Thus, it is apparent that the petitioner was promoted on the newly created post of Stenographer Grade-II on ad-hoc basis vide order dated 08.11.1985 (Annexure-6) after qualifying the shorthand and typing test conducted by the then Director Litigation and later he was regularized on the said post after being declared successful in the shorthand and English type test with the prescribed speed, as in evident from the order dated 29.04.1998 (Annexure-7), quoted hereinabove. 22. On attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from the post of Private Secretary vide order dated 28.02.2015 issued by the office of Advocate General, Rajasthan. However, since the petitioner was not paid the retiral benefits, gratuity, leave encashment etc. he was compelled to file the instant writ petition on 18.11.2015 claiming for the reliefs, as quoted hereinabove. In a shocking manner, vide order dated 27.08.2016, which was passed after filing of the writ petition, the cadre of the petitioner was changed by treating him in the cadre of LDC and he was treated as Office Superintendent ignoring his appointment on the post of Stenographer followed by his regularization according to the Rules of 1957 and also ignoring his promotion on the post of Private Secretary, which was made following the due process of law, followed by his confirmation on the said post on the recommendations of the DPC. Accordingly, the basic pay of the petitioner was reduced from Rs. 33,360/- to Rs. 20,210/-. 23. Accordingly, the basic pay of the petitioner was reduced from Rs. 33,360/- to Rs. 20,210/-. 23. Undisputedly, the petitioner had discharged his duties on the post of LDC-cum-Steno Typist from the year 1978 to 1985 i.e. for about 7 years, then as Stenographer from 1985 to 2001 i.e. for about 16 years and on the post of Private Secretary from 2001 to 2015 i.e. for about 15 years. There is also no dispute that during his entire service career of about 37 years starting from the year 1978, no departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner, but distressingly and surprisingly he has been reverted to the post of Office Superintendent only on the basis of report of the audit objection, that too after his superannuation. In this regard reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.A. Hameed (supra), wherein it was held that where the appointment is temporary or irregular in any manner, reversion should be carried out within a reasonable period and, therefore, reversion of the appellant therein from the post of District Inspector of Local Funds (Accounts) after 11 years was not justified and accordingly the order of reversion was set aside. The ratio of the judgment passed in M.A. Hameed (supra), applies to the present case on all force, as in this case the petitioner has been reverted to the post of Office Superintendent after about 31 years during which period he served the Department as Stenographer and Private Secretary, and that too after his retirement. 24. Furthermore, it is nobody's case that the petitioner obtained appointment by suppressing any material facts, fraud or misrepresentation and, therefore, the action of the respondents in depriving the petitioner from pensionary benefits of the post of Private Secretary, is wholly contrary to the rules of service law. 25. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 27.08.2016 is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 25. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 27.08.2016 is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. However, so far as the prayer for release of payment of actual benefits of increments for the period from 1986 to 2001 and arrears thereof is concerned, the same cannot be granted as the recovery proceedings for the same had to be initiated within a period of three years from the date it became due, whereas the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner after an inordinate delay i.e. in the year 2015. Thus, the prayer for release of payment of actual benefits of increments for the period from 1986 to 2001 and arrears thereof stands rejected. 26. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 27.08.2016 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to release the entire pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. in favour of the petitioner on the basis of last pay drawn of the post of Private Secretary alongwith interest @ 6% per annum and also to make payment of arrears of DA for the months of January and February, 2015.