ORDER Anjani Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, who was working as Registration Clerk, has challenged the order dated 16h January, 2003, whereby an order has been passed for recovery of the amount of increment paid to the petitioner for which he was not entitled. Before passing of the aforesaid order, the petitioner was given show cause notice dated 13th May, 2002 and the petitioner has submitted a reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. After consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner, it was found by the authorities that since the petitioner himself has opted that he is not willing to go on promotion because as a consequence of promotion, he is to be transferred. Therefore, the authorities have passed the order holding that the petitioner would not be transferred as he has agreed that petitioner will not be entitled for the increment by the order dated 5th April, 1991, wherein since the petitioner has agreed that all the increments may be withdrawn and the petitioner was directed to continue to work on his substantive post of Registration Clerk in Bijnore.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, according to the Government order, after completing 16 years of service, is in law entitled for the increased pay scale and promotion thus, if the same has been paid to the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be subjected to withdrawal of the benefit by the employer as the order for recovery from the petitioner has been directed by impugned order.
3. The aforesaid argument cannot be accepted as the petitioner himself has invited the order dated 5th April, 1991 and as a consequence of his own request, he has been posted to his place of original posting and even assuming that the Government order referred to by the petitioner confers a further fresh right in the petitioner, he admittedly, has not completed 16 years of service, from the date of passing of the order dated 5th April, 1991.
4. In this view of the matter, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The order for recovery, admittedly, has been passed after giving opportunity to the petitioner to show cause and after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Thus, there is no infirmity nor violation of any principle of law and none has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed.