1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1148 OF 1998. Madhukar Vishwanath Kulkarni, Age 58 years, Occ.Retired Govt. Servant, R/o Adarsha Colony, Partur, Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna. 3. The Block Development Officer, Class I, Panchayat Samiti, Partur, Dist. Jalna. ... Respondents. ... Mr.D.R.Irale Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.G.Patil, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.S.R.Bharad, advocate holding for Mr.V.D.Salunke, advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. ... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 15.07.2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.) 1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 4.12.1997, passed by the Respondent No.2 and the order dated 16.2.1998 of the Respondent NO.3, thereby reducing his pay-scale. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was promoted as a Senior Assistant on the establishment of the Zilla Parishad, Jalna on 16.10.1976 and was working on the said post thereafter in view of the Government Resolution dated 8.6.1995. The petitioner was given a time bound promotion and his pay-scale was revised. He was getting the said revised pay-scale till the date of his superannuation. After he retired from service, the impugned orders are issued, wherein the authorities have indulged in refixation of his pay-scale. According to the petitioner, the same would affect his further pensionary benefits. Mr.Irale Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the benefit was already granted, it can not be recovered to petitioner's detriment and contends that the said orders are bad in law. 3 3. The learned counsel for the Respondent Zilla Parishad contended that as the petitioner's confidential reports were not good, he was not eligible to be promoted and was not entitled to the said pay-scale which was given to him. According to the learned counsel, no fault can be found with the orders impugned by the petitioner. 4. On perusal of the Government Resolution dated 8.6.1995, it is clear that whatever benefits were given, the same would not be recovered. The petitioner was given a time bound promotion pursuant to the policy of the Government and it was pursuant to the said policy, the revised pay-scale was given to the petitioner. The Govt. Resolution says that the benefit which has been given can not be recovered back. As such after retirement of the petitioner, the impugned orders could not have been passed which would be detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. 5. In light of the above, we quash and set aside the impugned orders and direct that the 4 pension which was fixed as per the pay-scale at the time of the retirement of the petitioner shall continue. 6. Rule made absolute on above terms with no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp114898