JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The instant petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- (i) That the decision communicated dated 8th October, 2018 (Annexure A-8) alongwith decision taken on file vide N-115 dated 2.7.2018 and N-114 dated 24.9.2018 (Annexure A-9 colly) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to release salary of commutation half pay leave and recovery so effected from the applicant be refunded to the applicant alongwith interest @18% in the interest of justice and fair play. 2. The petitioner applied for 367 days including journey period to avail "Raman Fellowship for the Post Doctoral Research in USA for the year 2015-16, wherein he claimed following kinds of leave:- (i) Earned leave w.e.f. 4.4.2007 to 31.12.2016 = 264 days (ii) Half pay leave w.e.f.4.4.2007 to 31.12.2016 = 97.5 days. (iii) Earned leave w.c.f.31.12.2016 to 31.12.2017 = 6 days. 3. However, the leave applied by the petitioner was including the advance credit of earned leave and half pay leave for the next spell w.e.f. 01.07.2016, 01.07.2017 and 01.07.2018 respectively. As such the case of the petitioner was returned to the Dean of the respondent-University with the request that admissibility of advance credit of leave under the rules may be certified. 4. The petitioner thereafter applied for leave vide application dated 6.5.2016, wherein he claimed following kinds of leave:- (i) Earned leave w.e.f.13.7.2016 to 2.4.2017-264 days (ii) Half pay leave w.e.f.3.4.2017 to 7.7.2017-96 days 5. The above said leave was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner vide office order, dated 15.6.2016 well in advance on 15.6.2016 before proceeding to avail the Fellowship w.e.f. 13.7.2016. 6. As observed above, the petitioner had applied for only earned leave and half pay leave which was sanctioned by the respondents vide letter dated 15.06.2016. Moreover, commuted half pay leave was neither applied by the petitioner nor sanctioned by the respondents. The petitioner was also entitled for Fellowship amount of US $ 3000 per month. 7. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was only entitled to 96 days half pay leave w.e.f. 3.42017 to 7.7.2017 and obviously in such circumstances, excess amount paid to the petitioner by the office of respondent-University was bound to be recovered from him. 8. After all, the petitioner cannot unduly enrich himself by taking advantage of illegality committed by the office of the respondent-University. 8. After all, the petitioner cannot unduly enrich himself by taking advantage of illegality committed by the office of the respondent-University. Any recommendations to the contrary made by the respondent-University as sought to be relied upon by the petitioner are of no avail as this is tax payers money, in which office of the respondent-University is not vested with any discretion whatsoever. 9. Moreover notings which exist in the record of the respondent-University cannot also be relied upon and made basis for assailing action of the respondent-University as it is more than settled that internal notings are opinion of the office concerned for internal use and are not meant for outside exposure. Reliance in this regard can conveniently be placed on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vivek Batra vs. Union of India, (2017) 1 SCC 69 and Sethi Auto Service Station vs. Delhi Development Authority, (2009) 1 SCC 180 . 10. The internal notings are not a decision and do not confer any right till such time decision taken on file is translated into an order and duly communicated to a party. Mere internal notings and approval cannot form basis for claiming a right. In taking this view we are duly supported by recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority vs. Hello Home Education Society, (2024) 3 SCC 148 , wherein it was observed as under:- 19.7 The issue relating to internal notings as to whether it would confer any right or not has been adequately dealt with and settled by series of judgments of this Court. It is well settled that until and unless the decision taken on file is converted into a final order to be communicated and duly served on the concerned party, no right accrues to the said party. Mere notings and in-principle approvals do not confer a vested right. Relevant extracts from judgments of this Court in this regard are being reproduced hereunder: (a) Bhachhittar Singh (supra): “9. The question, therefore, is whether he did in fact make such an order. Merely writing something on the file does not amount to an order. Before something amounts to an order of the State Government two things are necessary. The order has to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required by clause (1) of Article 166 and then it has to be communicated. Merely writing something on the file does not amount to an order. Before something amounts to an order of the State Government two things are necessary. The order has to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required by clause (1) of Article 166 and then it has to be communicated. As already indicated, no formal order modifying the decision of the Revenue Secretary was ever made. Until such an order is drawn up the State Government cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as bound by what was stated in the file….. [Emphasis supplied] 10. ……Thus it is of the essence that the order has to be communicated to the person who would be affected by that order before the State and that person can be bound by that order. For, until the order is communicated to the person affected by it, it would be open to the Council of Ministers to consider the matter over and over again and, therefore, till its communication the order cannot be regarded as anything more than provisional in character.” [Emphasis supplied] (b) Sethi Auto Service Station (supra) “14. It is trite to state that notings in a departmental file do not have the sanction of law to be an effective order. A noting by an officer is an expression of his viewpoint on the subject. It is no more than an opinion by an officer for internal use and consideration of the other officials of the department and for the benefit of the final decision-making authority. Needless to add that internal notings are not meant for outside exposure. Notings in the file culminate into an executable order, affecting the rights of the parties, only when it reaches the final decision-making authority in the department, gets his approval and the final order is communicated to the person concerned.” [Emphasis supplied] “22. From the afore-extracted notings of the Commissioner and the order of the Vice Chairman, it is manifest that although there were several notings which recommended consideration of the appellants' case for relocation but finally no official communication was addressed to or received by the appellants accepting their claim. From the afore-extracted notings of the Commissioner and the order of the Vice Chairman, it is manifest that although there were several notings which recommended consideration of the appellants' case for relocation but finally no official communication was addressed to or received by the appellants accepting their claim. After the recommendation of the Technical Committee, the entire matter was kept pending; in the meanwhile, a new policy was formulated and the matter was considered afresh later in the year 2004, when the proposal was rejected by the Vice Chairman, the final decision making authority in the hierarchy. It is, thus, plain that though the proposals had the recommendations of State Level Co-ordinator (oil industry) and the Technical Committee but these did not ultimately fructify into an order or decision of the DDA, conferring any legal rights upon the appellants. Mere favourable recommendations at some level of the decision making process, in our view, are of no consequence and shall not bind the DDA. We are, therefore, in complete agreement with the High Court that the notings in the file did not confer any right upon the appellants, as long as they remained as such. We do not find any infirmity in the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench, warranting interference.” [Emphasis supplied] (c) Mahadeo (supra), “14. It is well settled that inter-departmental communications are in the process of consideration for appropriate decision and cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right. This Court examined the said question in a judgment reported as Omkar Sinha v. Sahadat Khan. Reliance was placed on Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab to hold that merely writing something on the file does not amount to an order. Before something amounts to an order of the State Government, two things are necessary. First, the order has to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required by clause (1) of Article 166 and second, it has to be communicated. As already indicated, no formal order modifying the decision of the Revenue Secretary was ever made. Until such an order is drawn up, the State Government cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as bound by what was stated in the file. [Emphasis supplied] 11. As already indicated, no formal order modifying the decision of the Revenue Secretary was ever made. Until such an order is drawn up, the State Government cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as bound by what was stated in the file. [Emphasis supplied] 11. The court cannot be oblivious to the fact that the petitioner at the time of filing present petition was barely aged about 47 years and is Class-I officer, being Professor, Department of Veterinary & Animal Sciences and would obviously be drawing a good salary and otherwise has long career and cannot therefore even plead financial hardship or claim any kind of equity once the excess amount is ordered to be recovered legally. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussions and for the reasons stated above, we find not merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.