JUDGMENT : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. 1. This matter is listed in the “Special Pension Board” category. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 3. The Petitioner has put forth prayer clauses (b) and (c), as under : (b) By issuing a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or directions in the like nature, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner and release the entire retiral/service and pensionary benefits with interest to the petitioner. (c) By issuing a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or directions in the like nature this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the communication dated 15.01.2021 issued by the respondent No.4 to the extent of the petitioner as Exh.-"F". 4. Having considered the strenuous submissions of the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned AGP, our attention is drawn to the affidavit in reply dated 4 th January, 2023 filed by the Inspector, Office of the Joint Director, Vocational Education and Training, Regional Office, Mumbai. 5. The learned AGP prays that paragraph nos.6 and 7 of the said affidavit in reply may be considered, and the effect of the affidavit in reply in its totality. 6. The benefits which are now sought to be recovered from the Petitioner, which he received as a Full Time Instructor, date back to 1990. Our attention is drawn to the document dated 4 th February, 2002 wherein the District Vocational Education and Training Officer, Ahmednagar, has recorded his impression on the qualifications of the Petitioner, as under : 7. The Petitioner was, therefore, held to be eligible for the benefits which were communicated to the Head Master of the Mahatma Gandhi Vidyalaya and Junior College, Pravaranagar, Taluka Rahata, District Ahmednagar. 8. In the above backdrop, we are reproducing paragraph nos.6 and 7 of the affidavit in reply, relied upon by the learned AGP, here under : 6. I say that vide approval order dated 08.02.1993, the Applicant appointment was regularized w.e.f. 29.06.1992. The said order dated 08.02.1993 is annexed and Petitioner at Exhibit-A, relevant page nos.35-36. 8. In the above backdrop, we are reproducing paragraph nos.6 and 7 of the affidavit in reply, relied upon by the learned AGP, here under : 6. I say that vide approval order dated 08.02.1993, the Applicant appointment was regularized w.e.f. 29.06.1992. The said order dated 08.02.1993 is annexed and Petitioner at Exhibit-A, relevant page nos.35-36. I say that the Petitioner has willfully consciously accepted the said temporary and subsequent regular appointment and have not anytime till date until filing of this present Affidavit assailed the approval order of appointment of the Petitioner on regular post as a Full Time Instructor, I say and submit that the order of appointment is nothing but an contract of service between the parties and the petitioner having accepted the said contract on terms mentioned therein now after a long period of more than 20 years cannot dispute the contract or assail the benefits flowing from the said contract of service: The Petitioner is estopped from now assailing the terms of service contract after a period of more than 20 years from date of regular appointment. 7. I say that initially when the Petitioner was given conditional approval for the A.Y. 1989-1990 until the date of granting regular appointment, he wasn't qualified as he did not possess the required experience of three years. Therefore the Petitioner was given conditional approval from the A.Y. 1989-1990, 1990-91 & 1991-92 and his services was regularized from the Academic Year 1992- 1993 w.e.f. 29.06.1992. The said temporary approval was given to the Petitioner so that the training of the trainees is not affected. Therefore relaxing the 3 years' experience for the post held by the Petitioner, the Petitioner was given temporary conditional approvals. Hence as the Petitioner wasn't qualified for the post of Full Time Instructor until 29.06.1992, he is also not eligible for any increments, which increments were inadvertently paid to him due to oversight. 9. The recovery against the Petitioner has been commenced by an order dated 15 th January, 2021. The In-charge Inspector has addressed the District Vocational Education and Training Officer, Raigad, that the requirement of experience was 3 years and as the Petitioner had the experience of only 1 year and 5 months, he was not eligible. Hence, the increments paid to him deserve to be recovered. This impression is gathered without hearing the Petitioner, as on 15 th January, 2021. Hence, the increments paid to him deserve to be recovered. This impression is gathered without hearing the Petitioner, as on 15 th January, 2021. The Petitioner superannuated as Assistant Lecturer from Respondent No.7 School on 31 st May, 2021. As such, on the verge of his retirement, the increment benefits and salary benefits earned by the Petitioner from 1990 onwards, are sought to be recovered 4½ months prior to his superannuation. 10. Insofar as the cyclostyled undertaking extracted from the Petitioner on 10 th July, 2019 is concerned, it was too late for the Department to extract such an undertaking from the Petitioner knowing that he was superannuating on 31 st May, 2021 and when the benefits were made available to him since 1990, over a period of 29 years. 11. In view of the above, we find that the impugned order cannot be justified. After a passage of 30 years, when the Petitioner was on the verge of retirement, the impugned order has been issued 4½ months prior thereto. The case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by Syed Abdul Qadir vs. State of Bihar and Ors. 2009 (3) SCC 475 and State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334 . 12. In view of the above, this Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) to (e). Prayer clauses (b) and (c) have been reproduced above. Prayer clauses (d) and (e), which are consequential reliefs, are reproduced hereinunder: (d) By issuing a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or directions in the like nature this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.4 and 5 to decide and allow the service verification proposal submitted by the respondent No.7 the Headmaster of school. (e) By issuing a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or directions in the like nature this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.7 school to forthwith submit the pension papers of the petitioner before the respondent No.4 and 6 for granting pension and other retiral benefits. 13. The pension proposal of the Petitioner will be resubmitted by Respondent No.7, within a period of 30 days from today and the proposal shall be cleared within a period of 45 days thereafter. 14. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.