M.P.Mehrotra, B.N.Sapru, JJ. - (1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners have a grievance that the impugned order passed on February 16, 1983, (Annexure VI to the petition) has been withdrawn with retrospective effect. In Annexure II whereby the provisional appointment was given as temporary Mate, it had been made clear that if the scrunity of the reports revealed anything otherwise, which calls for modification of seniority and consequently affecting the eligibility of the appointment, the said provisional appointment was liable to be cancelled and the person concerned was to be resorted to his original post and cadre without any claim thereof.
(2.) In view of the said clear position, set out in the appointment letter itself, the petitioners could be sent back to his original post and, therefore, so far as the order dated February 16, 1983, has sent the petitioners back to his original post, there is nothing wrong with it.
(3.) However, since the petitioners have worked on the higher post for a certain duration, it seems equitable that they should not be called upon to repay the enhanced emoluments which they received in the higher post.;