JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. 1. Government of Himachal Pradesh, Finance Department, came out with an office memorandum on 07.04.2012 on the subject of grant of two additional increments to the Drivers of the State Government on completion of 20 years of service in Government departments. Whether the aforesaid office memo is prospective or retrospective is the only question urged by learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the dispute in this writ petition revolves around the contours of the said Office Memorandum, it is being extracted hereinafter:- “Subject: Grant of two additional increments in place of one additional increment being allowed for the present on completion of 20 years' service to the Drivers in all Govt. Departments. In continuation of this department O.M. of even number dated 12th June, 2007, the Undersigned is directed to say that the matter regarding sanctioning of two additional increments to the Drivers of the State Government on completion of 20 years of regular continuous service was under consideration of the Government and after due consideration, it has been decided that the additional increments will be granted to the Drivers subject to the following terms and conditions:- a. The drivers working in various govt. departments on completion of 20 years of regular service on 1.4.2012 and onwards shall be allowed two additional increments in place of one increment being allowed at present; b. In case of those Drivers who have already been granted one additional increment after completion of 20 years of service before issue of these orders, they shall be granted only one additional increment thereby making the total number of additional increments as two: c. The benefit of additional increments will be admissible only to those drivers who have not got any promotion to the next promotional post (if available in any office/department prior to completion of 20 years continuous regular service); d. The additional increments will be admissible w.e.f. 1.4.2012 @ 3% of the Basic Pay at the relevant stage on completion of 20 years continuous regular service. The incumbents who complete 20 years of service on or after 1.4.2012 will only be entitled to the grant of two additional increments on completion of 20 years continuous regular service as Driver; e. The grant of additional increments will not be treated as "gain" for being bar for the purpose of allowing benefits under the ACPS scheme. The incumbents who complete 20 years of service on or after 1.4.2012 will only be entitled to the grant of two additional increments on completion of 20 years continuous regular service as Driver; e. The grant of additional increments will not be treated as "gain" for being bar for the purpose of allowing benefits under the ACPS scheme. In other words, the increment in question shall be in addition to the benefits which may accrue under the ACPS scheme; f. The criteria and other conditions for allowing of benefits of additional increments will be the same as is followed for award of higher pay scales/proficiency increments etc. under the ACPS scheme notified by the State Government; and g. The benefit of two additional increments on completion of 20 years of continuous regular service shall be granted with effect from 1.4.2012 prospectively. Above decision may kindly be brought to the notice of all concerned implementation in its letter and spirit.” 2. As per the aforesaid office memorandum:- ? The Drivers working in various Government Departments were to be allowed two additional increments on completion of 20 years of regular service on 01.04.2012 and onwards. ? Those Drivers, who had already been granted one additional increment on completion of 20 years of service before 07.04.2012, were to be granted only one additional increment for making the total number of additional increments as two. ? The additional increments were to be admissible w.e.f. 01.04.2012 @ 3% of the basic pay at the relevant stage on completion of 20 years of regular service. The incumbents who complete 20 years of service on or after 01.04.2012 were entitled to grant of two additional increments on completion of 20 years of continuous regular service as Driver on or after 01.04.2012. ? The benefit of two additional increments on completion of 20 years of continuous regular service was to be granted w.e.f. 01.04.2012 prospectively. 3 . Respondents vide order dated 09.10.2019 (Annexure P-2) granted additional increments to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.05.2011, i.e. immediately on completion of 20 years of regular service by him. On 26.07.2022 the respondents realized that they had released additional increments to the petitioner on his completing 20 years of continuous regular service, i.e. w.e.f. 01.05.2011, whereas under the office memorandum, additional increments could not have been released to the petitioner prior to 01.04.2012. On 26.07.2022 the respondents realized that they had released additional increments to the petitioner on his completing 20 years of continuous regular service, i.e. w.e.f. 01.05.2011, whereas under the office memorandum, additional increments could not have been released to the petitioner prior to 01.04.2012. To rectify the mistake, the respondents issued office order on 26.07.2022 withdrawing the additional increments given to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.05.2011 (Annexure P-5). The respondents also issued another office order on 26.07.2022 (Annexure P-4) refixing the petitioner’s pay by allowing him the additional increments w.e.f. 01.04.2012.Petitioner feels aggrieved against the office order dated 26.07.2022 (Annexure P-5). Besides praying for quashing of this office order, petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to restore his pay fixation ordered on 09.10.2019 (Annexure P-2). 4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner impressing upon Clause (a) of office memorandum dated 07.04.2012 has vehemently urged that the said office memorandum dated 07.04.2012 has to be construed to have retrospective application. That the petitioner was required to be released additional increments the moment he completed 20 years of regular service. Petitioner having completed 20 years of regular service on 01.05.2011, the additional increment had been justly allowed in his favour by the respondents under office order dated 09.10.2019 w.e.f. 01.05.2011. The order dated 26.07.2022 withdrawing this benefit from the petitioner was not in conformity with office memorandum dated 07.04.2012.Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that only the pay of the petitioner has been re-fixed by the respondents under orders dated 26.07.2022 (Annexure P-4 & P-5) taking into perspective the office memorandum dated 07.04.2012 by allowing the additional increments to the petitioner w.e.f. 07.04.2012 without affecting any recovery from him of the over-payment made to him w.e.f. 09.10.2019 onwards. His statement is noted. 5 . The office memorandum dated 07.04.2012 states that additional increments on completion of 20 years of continuous service are to be granted w.e.f. 07.04.2012 and prospectively. Once the office memorandum in an unambiguous and clear language states about its applicability to be prospective in nature, it cannot be presumed to be retrospective. Under order dated 09.10.2019, the respondents had erroneously allowed the additional increments to the petitioner retrospectively w.e.f. 01.05.2011, i.e. the day he completed 20 years of service, whereas it could have been allowed only prospectively, i.e. with effect from 07.04.2012. Under order dated 09.10.2019, the respondents had erroneously allowed the additional increments to the petitioner retrospectively w.e.f. 01.05.2011, i.e. the day he completed 20 years of service, whereas it could have been allowed only prospectively, i.e. with effect from 07.04.2012. Petitioner’s completing 20 years of service prior to 07.04.2012 was irrelevant for the purpose of grant of two additional increments. Right to two additional increments was conferred upon him under office memorandum dated 07.04.2012, which bestowed this right prospectively. The office memorandum dated 07.04.2012 is not under challenge in this petition. Petitioner has not alleged any recovery effected from him on account of refixation of his pay. No other point was urged for the petitioner. 6. In view of the above, the relief as claimed for by the petitioner cannot be granted to him. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of.