ORDER

Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral). - This order will dispose of four writ petitions, CWP No.2526 of 2011 wherein the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.12.2010 whereby the earlier order dated 21.05.1992, granting retrospective service benefits to the petitioner have been withdrawn, CWP No. 10074 of 2011 wherein the petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.05.2011 ordering recovery from him, CWP No.7217 of 2016 wherein the petitioner has sought release of retiral/pensionary benefits as per his full entitlement, and the CWP No.10103 of 2000 wherein a different petitioner has challenged the grant of retrospective benefits to the petitioner of abovementioned three petitions vide order dated 21.05.1992. For reference the main facts, as are involved in all these petitions, are taken from CWP No.2526 of 2011.

2. The undisputed facts involved in these cases are that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk with respondent-Department on contract basis vide order dated 26.04.1973. Accordingly, he had submitted his joining on the same date. Subsequently, the applications were invited for filling up the posts of Clerk on regular basis, vide advertisement issued in April, 1974. The petitioner had also applied for the said post for his consideration for appointment on regular basis. Pursuant to that selection, the candidates were selected and appointed upon the said posts on regular basis. However, the petitioner could not get selected in the said recruitment for the post of Clerk. Accordingly, the service of the petitioner was dispensed with on 29.10.1974. Challenging the order of dispensing with the service and challenging the selection made for filling up the post on regular basis, the petitioner filed CWP No.5895 of 1974 before this Court. In that writ petition it was asserted by the petitioner that the petitioner could not be appointed on regular basis because a factual wrong information qua typing test was furnished by office. The writ petition came up for hearing before this Court after notice. During the hearing, the respondent-department had sent a letter to the Advocate General office which conveyed that since the information qua typing test of the petitioner was factually incorrect, therefore, instead of getting the entire selection set aside, the petitioner could be offered appointment on regular basis. Accordingly the statement was made before this Court by the Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and vide order dated 04.10.1982 this Court disposed of the above said writ petition recording therein that as per the statement made by the Assistant Advocate General, the petitioner would be accommodated on the post of Clerk forthwith and his appointment shall be treated as a fresh appointment as per the statement made by the Assistant Advocate General.

3. In compliance of the above said order of High Court, the petitioner was appointed as Clerk on regular basis vide letter dated 12.10.1982 with a condition that it shall be the fresh appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner accepted that fresh appointment and joined as such. However, after about 10 years the petitioner made a representation to the Government asserting that he was wrongly terminated initially in the year 1974, therefore, he should be given the benefit of continuity of service for the entire intervening duration. That representation was directly made to the office of Secretary, Social Welfare Department, without being routed through the Director. Upon this representation, the then Secretary, Social Welfare Department passed the order dated 15.05.1992, whereby the petitioner was granted benefits of service from the date of original appointment, i.e. 26.04.1973. Accordingly, the necessary order dated 21.05.1992 was passed by granting all benefits of his past service, w.e.f. 26.04.1973 for all purposes, including seniority. As a result, seniority of the petitioner was refixed by counting his service from 27.04.1973 and by also granting h