ORDER : S. K. Keshote, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that two pay scales are being provided since inception for qualified Compounders and another for unqualified Compounders. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1962 and it is not in dispute that he was not qualified. By mistake, though the petitioner was not entitled for the payscale prescribed for the qualified Compounders, he was given the payscale of the qualified Compounders. The mistake continued and on revision of the payscales, he was given the benefits thereafter also accordingly. The mistake has later on been found out and the respondents have passed the order on 11-4-1988 whereby petitioners pay was ordered to be fixed with effect from 1-1-1973 in the payscale prescribed for unqualified Compounders. The petitioners pay has further been fixed under consequential fixations in the revised pay scales corresponding to the payscale of unqualified compounders. The order dated 11-4-1988 further reveals that the excess amount which has been paid to the petitioner during the period 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1988 may be recovered from his salary. This order is under challenge in this writ petition. The petition was admitted on 17-10-1990 and the operation of the order dated 14th April, 1988 was stayed. There seems to be some error in the date of the impugned order. In the writ petition, it has been mentioned to be 11-4-1988 but in the order dated 17-9-1990 it has been mentioned to be dated 14-4-1988, but this order is at Annexure "A" and it is dated 11-4-1988. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out a case for the payscale prescribed for the qualified compounders. The prayer made in the petition for a declaration that the petitioner is a qualified compounder and is eligible to be promoted as Senior Pharmacist cannot be granted as the petitioner has failed to show that he possesses the requisite qualifications prescribed for the qualified compounder. It is no more res integra that on the basis of the qualifications and experience two different payscales can be laid down for the same post. That is what exactly had been done in the present case. Since 1962 when the petitioner entered in the services two different payscales have been prescribed on the basis of qualifications. It is no more res integra that on the basis of the qualifications and experience two different payscales can be laid down for the same post. That is what exactly had been done in the present case. Since 1962 when the petitioner entered in the services two different payscales have been prescribed on the basis of qualifications. It is a different matter that due to the mistake of the respondents the petitioner had been continued in the higher payscale for which he was not entitled but to continue to draw the salary in the higher payscale he does not acquire any right. It is a mistake which is subject to correction and what exactly has been done by the respondents under the order dated 11-4-1988. The order has been passed without giving notice to the petitioner but on this ground alone the writ petition cannot be allowed. For entitlement of the payscale prescribed for qualified compounders, the petitioner has to satisfy this court that he possessed the requisite qualifications, which he failed to establish. In such cases, the non observation of the principles of natural justice is not significant. The substance of the matter has to be taken and not the form. 2. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that the order dated 11-4-1988 to the extent the petitioner is not entitled to the payscale prescribed for qualified compounders is perfectly legal and justified. The petitioner though is not entitled for the payscale prescribed for the qualified compounder but the other part of the order dated 11-4-1988 relating to the recovery of the excess amount paid during the period 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1988 is not sustainable. It is a mistake of the respondents and not of the petitioner. The petitioner has not concealed anything from the respondents. He has opened all the cards. He was given appointment but though he was unqualified compounder the respondents have given him the pay of the qualified compounder. Whatever mistake is there, is of the respondents and the petitioner cannot be put to suffer the loss for the same. The matter would have been different where the petitioner would have committed some fraud or he would have been instrumental in any manner to deceive the respondents and get the benefits which is not the case here. The petitioner has received this benefit bona fide. The matter would have been different where the petitioner would have committed some fraud or he would have been instrumental in any manner to deceive the respondents and get the benefits which is not the case here. The petitioner has received this benefit bona fide. Though enjoying of the higher payscale may not have culminated in accruing of some right, the benefit which has been received by him till 31-3-1988 cannot be taken back. In the case of Shyambabu Verrna v. Union of India, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521 , a some-what similar question has come up for consideration before the apex Court. There also the payscale was reduced but the action of the respondents therein of recovery of the excess amount paid was held to be unjustified. In view of the decision of the apex Court in Shyambabus case (supra), the order dated 11-4-1988 to the extent it relates to the recovery of the amount paid from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1988 cannot be allowed to sustain. Reference may also have to another decision of the apex Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Narsinha Sundaram reported in AIR 1994 SC 599 . In that case, the respondent therein by suppressing his correct age continued in the service beyond retiral age. The appellant therein had refused to pay to the respondent therein the salary for this period. The apex Court held that the salary for this period cannot be withheld without inquiry. 3. In the result, this writ petition succeeds in part. The petitioner though is not entitled for the payscale prescribed for the purpose of qualified compounders, but the respondents have no right or justification to recover the excess of salary paid to the petitioner during the period from 1-1-1973 to 21-3-1988. The order dated 11-4-1988 is set aside to that extent only. The petitioners salary be fixed in the lower payscale accordingly but the excess payment made during this period be not recovered. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. Interim relief stands vacated. Order accordingly.