JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri B.R. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :- "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order, as contained in Annexure No.1, dated 16.01.2020 passed by the opposite party No.4 and the letters dated 28.05.2020 and 18.07.2019, as contained in Annexure Nos.2 and 3, passed by the opposite party No.2. (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to reduce the pension of the petitioner in pursuance of Annexure No.1. (iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay the arrears of pay fixation dated 09.01.2018 in tune of Rs.315145/-to the petitioner and other arrears." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contented that the petitioner retired from service on 31.01.2018 and before his retirement his final salary has been determined vide office memo dated 09.01.2018 (Annexure No.13) to the tune of Rs.83300/-and on the basis of said salary the pension of the petitioner was fixed as Rs.41650/-, as indicated in Annexure No.15 to the writ petition. After about 2 years from his retirement, the impugned office memo dated 16.01.2020 has been issued by the Executive Engineer concerned reducing the final pay of the petitioner to Rs.80900/-thereby reducing the pension of the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that since the pay fixation of the petitioner was wrongly made in the year 1996 and later on, therefore, the required exercise has been carried out pursuant to the letters dated 18.07.2019, 19.11.2019 and 02.12.2019. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards the counter affidavit showing Annexure Nos.CA-1 to CA-3, which are letters dated 18.07.2019, 19.11.2019 and 02.12.2019, wherein it has been indicated that salary of the petitioner was wrongly fixed in the year 1996 and later on. Therefore, cautious decision was taken to revise the salary of the petitioner as per the Government Orders. Therefore, cautious decision was taken to revise the salary of the petitioner as per the Government Orders. Further attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.CA-4 of the counter affidavit, which is a letter dated 02.01.2019 as copy thereof has been provided to the petitioner, whereby it has been indicated that the salary of the petitioner shall be reduced in terms of the government order as it has not been fixed properly. 6. As per learned Standing Counsel, the petitioner has not submitted the reply to the aforesaid letter dated 02.01.2019, therefore, the impugned order dated 16.01.2020 has been passed reducing the pay scale of the petitioner and such order is well reasoned order which has been passed considering the relevant government orders. 7. Replying the aforesaid contention of learned Standing Counsel, Sri B.R. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards paras-10 to 13 of the writ petition wherein he has categorically indicated that in the issue in question the Division Bench of this Court has passed the judgment and order dated 29.03.2011 in Writ Petition No.786 (S/B) of 2009 allowing the writ petition in part directing the opposite parties to provide the notional promotion and other consequential benefits to the petitioner with effect from 01.09.1996. Notably, this fact has not been denied by the State in the counter affidavit. The operative portion of the judgment and order dated 29.03.2011 is being reproduced here-in-below:- "Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part and impugned order dated 12th January 2009, passed by the Tribunal stands modified subject to the aforesaid directions. The claimant-respondents are entitled for notional promotion and with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 1st September, 1996." 8. Sri B.R. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid judgment and order dated 29.03.2011 has not been assailed by the State Government and vide subsequent office memo dated 08.09.2011 (Annexure No.8) made compliance of order dated 29.03.2011. 9. Sri B.R. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has therefore submitted that since the petitioner was paid appropriate pay scale strictly in accordance with law and also in compliance of order of this Court dated 29.03.2011, therefore, the petitioner did not reply to the letter dated 02.01.2019 which was issued by the Finance Controller of the department addressing to the Executive Engineer of the Department. 10. 10. Sri B.R. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Sushil Kumar Singhal vs. Pramukh Sachiv Irrigation Department and others reported in (2014) 16 SCC 444 referring para-7 thereof by submitting that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered with the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court inasmuch as the petitioner retired from service in the month of January, 2018 and by means of impugned order dated 16.01.2020 the benefit, which was provided to the petitioner in the year 1996 onwards, has been reduced. Para-7 of the aforesaid judgment is being reproduced here-in-below:- "7. Upon perusal of the aforestated G.O. and the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, it is not in dispute that the appellant had retired on 31st December, 2003 and at the time of his retirement his salary was Rs.11,625/-and on the basis of the said salary his pension had been fixed as Rs.9000/-. Admittedly, if any mistake had been committed in pay fixation, the mistake had been committed in 1986, i.e. much prior to the retirement of the appellant and therefore, by virtue of the aforestated G.O. dated 16th January, 2007, neither any salary paid by mistake to the appellant could have been recovered nor pension of the appellant could have been reduced." 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on records, I am of the considered opinion that if the Competent Authority has extended any benefit to an employee in compliance of the judgment and order passed by this Court or by any Constitutional Court, the said benefit may not be reviewed/ recalled without getting appropriate order from the concerning court by filing review application or challenging the said order before the Superior Court. 12. In the present case, admittedly, in compliance of the judgment and order dated 29.03.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.786 (S/S) of 2009 and other connected matters the benefit has been given to the petitioner on 08.09.2011. Admittedly, no review has been sought by the State Government seeking review of order dated 29.03.2011 and the said order has not been assailed before the Superior Court. Admittedly, no review has been sought by the State Government seeking review of order dated 29.03.2011 and the said order has not been assailed before the Superior Court. As a matter of fact, the review of order dated 08.09.2011 (Annexure No.8) has been sought preferring notice to the petitioner on 02.01.2020 and later on the said order has been reviewed by means of order dated 16.01.2021 (Annexure No.1), which is not legally permissible. I wonder the manner in which the earlier compliance order dated 08.09.2011 has been reviewed by means of office memo dated 16.01.2020 which is not appreciated. 13. Besides, the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Sushil Kumar Singhal (supra) has clearly held that if any mistake committed by the department in making pay fixation of an employee is rectified after the retirement of an employee withdrawing the benefit which have been paid to such employee much prior to the retirement of an employee, such mistake may not be rectified, consequently no amount in the name of excess amount shall be recovered from the employee nor the pension of such employee could be reduced. 14. In the present case, there is no averment on the part of the State Government that for getting the benefit of pay scale in the year 1996 onwards the petitioner has ever misrepresented before the Competent Authority, rather, the said benefit has been provided to the petitioner in compliance of order of this Court as observed above. The specific averments to this effect made in paras-10 to 13 of the writ petition has not been denied by the State in the counter affidavit. 15. I am restraint to observe that the authority concerned should refrain itself in passing inappropriate and illogical order recalling its own order passed way back inasmuch as in the present case the appropriate order of compliance has been passed on 08.09.2011 (Annexure No.8), which has been recalled vide office memo dated 16.01.2020 (Annexure No.1) i.e. after more than eight years. It is also to be noted here that just before 20 days of retirement of the petitioner the office memo dated 09.01.2018 (Annexure No.13) was passed determining the final salary of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.83300/-and the pension of the petitioner has been fixed on the basis of the aforesaid office memo dated 09.01.2018. 16. It is also to be noted here that just before 20 days of retirement of the petitioner the office memo dated 09.01.2018 (Annexure No.13) was passed determining the final salary of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.83300/-and the pension of the petitioner has been fixed on the basis of the aforesaid office memo dated 09.01.2018. 16. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the issue and the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Sushil Kumar Singhal (supra), I hereby set aside/ quash the impugned order dated 16.01.2020 passed by the opposite party No.4 being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 17. Consequently, the order dated 28.05.2020 (Annexure No.2) whereby the Executive Engineer has issued direction to modify the pension of the petitioner is also quashed/ set aside. 18. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties not to reduce the pension of the petitioner pursuant to the office memo dated 16.01.2020, which has been quashed by this court and the petitioner shall also be entitled for all consequential benefits ignoring the impugned office memo dated 16.01.2020. The opposite parties shall make compliance of the aforesaid order within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified/ computerized copy of this order, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the dues. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 20. No order as to cost.