( 1 ) THE only question raised in this petition by the petitioner is whether the respondent-Railway can recover the salary and wages paid to the petitioner employed on a promotional post on which he has actually worked for number of years before he was reverted to the lower cadre on account of adjustment of his seniority vis-a-vis other employees.

( 2 ) AT the outset I may say that it is a very sorry state of affairs for a mighty administration like the Railway to come out with the order at Annexure-C dated 7-9-1977 directing recovery of the excess salary claimed for the period from 19-4-1961 to 31= 1976 amounting to Rs. 5 777 ps. from the petitioner.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was recruited in the respondent-Railway as Tracer in the year 1955 and was promoted to the post of Junior Draftsman on 19-4-1961. The petitioner was thereafter further promoted to the post of Junior Estimator from 23-12-1962 and thereafter to the post of Senior Estimator on 16-3-1966 According to the petitioner he was promoted strictly in accordance with the orders of promotion passed by the competent authority. It appears that some of the employees who were treated as juniors to the petitioner had filed civil suit in the court of Civil Judge Senior Division Bhavnagar and the said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. In consequence thereof the Divisional Office of the respondent-Railway passed an order on 30/01/1976 readjusting the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis those employees who succeeded in the suit and the petitioner was placed below them. It appears that thereafter an order dated 21-12-1976 was passed by the Divisional Office at Bhavnagar withdrawing the benefits of proforma fixation granted to the petitioner in the year 1962; and by the impugned order dated 7/09/1977 an amount of Rs. 5 777. 4 ps. was ordered to be recovered from the petitioner in the manner laid down therein. Being aggrieved by the said recovery order the petitioner has filed this petition and challenged the order.

( 4 ) THE contention of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not only promoted to the higher cadre of Junior Draftsman in April 1961 treating those persons of the civil suit as junior to him but the petitioner also received two further promotions to the higher posts of Junior Estimator and Senior Estimator and throughout fifteen years the petitioner has worked on those posts and discharged his duties as Junior Draftsman Junior Estimator and Senior Estimator respectively. It is not disputed by the Railway Administration that the petitioner was promoted to the respective higher cadres by the orders passed by the competent authority; that he has worked on those promotional posts discharged his duties taken responsibilities of those posts and received salary available to those posts. Therefore the impugned order passed by the Railway Administration for recovery of the difference of salary is arbitrary discriminatory and illegal according to the petitioner and he prays for appropriate writ to quash and set aside the said order.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that even on the principle of quantum meruit the petitioner is entitled to the salary of that post on which he has actually worked though ultimately his promotional order may be found not strictly in accordance with the rule. The petitioner has further stated that the Railway having promoted the petitioner after rejecting the objections of the alleged junior persons and having taken work from the petitioner and paid salary is estopped from contending that the payment has been wrongly made. On the aforesaid contentions let me now examine she argument raised by the petitioner.

( 6 ) IT is no doubt true that the petitioner was promoted by orders passed by the competent authority and the petitioner has worked on the respective promotional posts and has been paid salary earmarked for those posts. It is a settled p