The present writ petition has been preferred mainly for challenging the order, passed by the respondents at Annexure-5 dated 31st January, 2006 to the memo of the petition whereby, the yearly increments given to the petitioner from 1979 to 1995 have been ordered to be withdrawn after approximately 11 years from the date of last increment and after approximately quarter of century after the first increment was given and that too without any opportunity of being heard and without giving any notice to the petitioner. Had an opportunity been given to the petitioner, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would have pointed out to the respondents that there was no illegality in granting the yearly increments to him from 1979 onwards and therefore, the• order at Annexure-5 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

2. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has retired in the year, 2007 and, in fact, no amount could have been recovered after retirement of the petitioner and therefore, hurriedly an ex parte and arbitrarily order was passed at Annexure-5, just before a couple of months prior to his retirement.

3. Counsel for the petitio