JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. 1. For the reasons indicated in the delay condonation application, the delay of 272 days in filing the special appeal is hereby condoned. Accordingly, the delay condonation application (CLMA No. 01 of 2023) is allowed. 2. State of Uttarakhand has filed this intra-court appeal challenging the judgment dated 03.08.2022 rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in WPSS No. 100 of 2016. By the said judgment, writ petition, filed by Mr. Anand Singh Rawat (respondent no. 1 herein), was allowed. Operative portion of the impugned judgment is reproduced below:- “13. In that eventuality, and for the reason assigned above, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned orders No. 1859/689 dated 16.11.2015 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) and the order No. 1860/689 dated 16.11.2015, are hereby set aside and the consequential effect of the quashing of the impugned orders would be, that the petitioner would be continued to be extended with the revised scale as already settled to be paid to him in pursuance to the decision of 11.08.2014, as rendered by the Commissioner, in the light of the conditions of Government Order dated 25.09.2013. 14. Accordingly the Writ Petition stands allowed.” 3. It is not in dispute that vide order dated 11.08.2014 passed by Food Commissioner, Uttarakhand, writ petitioner was given Grade Pay of Rs.4600 w.e.f. 01.08.2006. Upon grant of Grade Pay of Rs.4600, he made representation to the Food Commissioner, contending that since his counter parts, serving in State of Uttar Pradesh, were given Grade Pay of Rs.4200 w.e.f. 01.01.2006, while he was paid Grade Pay of Rs.2800 in State of Uttarakhand after his relieving from Uttar Pradesh on 07.04.2006, therefore, he be given Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- w.e.f. date of his joining in Uttarakhand. The representation made by petitioner was rejected by Food Commissioner, Uttarakhand, who also cancelled his order dated 11.08.2014, whereby writ petitioner was granted Grade Pay of Rs.4600. Thus feeling aggrieved, writ petitioner, challenged the order dated 16.11.2015 passed by Food Commissioner, in a writ petition. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by the impugned judgment, which is impugned in this appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Thus feeling aggrieved, writ petitioner, challenged the order dated 16.11.2015 passed by Food Commissioner, in a writ petition. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by the impugned judgment, which is impugned in this appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned Single Judge has considered and discussed all relevant aspects in great detail and has held that Food Commissioner, Uttarakhand could not have unilaterally reviewed his order dated 11.08.2014, whereby Grade Pay of Rs.4600 was granted to writ petitioner w.e.f. 01.08.2006. Learned Single Judge has further held that the order dated 11.08.2014 was passed by Food Commissioner pursuant to policy decision contained in Government Order dated 25.09.2013 and unless the Government Policy is changed or withdrawn, a benefit given pursuant to such Government Policy could not have been withdrawn. Learned Single Judge has further held that the cancellation order dated 16.11.2015 was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as writ petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing while withdrawing the monetary benefits earlier granted to him. 6. It is not in dispute that writ petitioner retired from the post of Administrative Officer upon completing age of superannuation, on 30.09.2010. The manner in which the Grade Pay of writ petitioner was reduced, five years after his retirement, cannot be justified. It is not in dispute that writ petitioner was not heard while withdrawing the benefit of Higher Grade Pay which was granted to him by the Competent Authority. Learned Single Judge has given valid reasons for setting aside the order dated 16.11.215 passed by Food Commissioner, Uttarakhand. 7. This Court is not persuaded to take a view different from the one taken by learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. Thus, there is no scope for interference with the impugned judgment. 8. Accordingly, special appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.