1 Wp 6582.11 Kambli IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6582 OF 2011 ... Shri Satyawan Vitthal Mote ...Petitioner v/s. Government of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents ... Mr.Pankaj Kowli i/b Chandrakant N. Chavan for the Petitioner. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, Addl.G.P. for the State. Mr.S.K.Sawant for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM: D.K.Deshmukh & Anoop V. Mohta, JJ DATED: 22nd December, 2011 P.C.: Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By this petition the Petitioner challenges the order dated 16th March, 2011 passed by the Respondent No.2- University. Admitted fact is that the Respondent No.2- University made an order dated 31-10-2006. The operative part of that order reads as under: “Having regards above, the Vice-chancellor, Dr.B.S.K.K.V. Dapoli, is pleased to order that, the past service of Shri S.V.More, Asst.Registrar 2 Wp 6582.11 (Admn-I), Dr.B.S.K.K.V., Dapoli, for the period from 10/7/1970 to 30/9/1982 ( 12 years, 2 months, 22 days) rendered in Mahatma Phule Adhyapak Vidhalaya, Satara, under Education Department, be counted as qualifying service with the service of Dr.B.S.K.K.V., Dapoli, for pensionery benefits. The necessary entries of above past service be taken in his Service Book.” 3. This order was in favour of the Petitioner. By order dated 16th March, 2011, which is challenged in the petition, the order dated 31st October, 2006 has been cancelled. This has been done without issuing any show cause notice to the Petitioner. After making that order, on the basis of that order a notice has been served on the Petitioner dated 31st march, 2011 seeking to recover amount of Rs.52,773/- from the Petitioner with interest. Therefore, the Petitioner has approached this court challenging the order dated 16th March, 2011 and the Notice dated 31st March, 2011. 4. There is no dispute that the notice dated 31st March, 2011 is a consequence of the order dated 16th March, 2011. By order dated 31st October, 2006 certain benefits were conferred on the Petitioner. Obviously, those benefits could 3 Wp 6582.11 not have been withdrawn without notice. The order dated 16th March, 2011 and the Notice issued as a consequence of that order dated 31st March, 2011 are, therefore, set aside. 5. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (D,K.DESHMUKH, J.) 4 Wp 6582.11