JUDGMENT Dr. J. N. Dubey, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.5.1992 of the respondent no. 1, the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (for short the corporation) as contained in memo dated 17.6.1992 of the Special Officer (Annexure 6). 2. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Helpers in the Corporation between October 1967 to July 1974. Since then they are working on that post continuously. The State Government constituted 4th Pay Revision Committee for the purposes of revising Pay scale of various categories of government employees. It submitted its report which was accepted by the Department of finance on 30.12.1981 and made applicable with effect from 1.4.1981. The Pay Revision Committee has had introduced a new scheme providing two time bound promotion in each cadre. An employee is entitled to get 1st time bound promotion on completion of 10 years of service and 2nd on completion of 25 years, notwithstanding the fact that the specified percentage of the cadre is already provided in different levels of promotion inclusive of the Selection Grade. 3. The Corporation accepted the report of the 4th pay Revision Committee and the aforesaid resolution of the Government of its employees mutatis mutandis. The next higher post in the Corporation is that of Artisan ‘C’ or Mechanic ‘C’ in the pay scale of Rs. 480 to 680 after 4th Pay Revision Committee report. Since the petitioner had completed 10 years of service as Helpers, they were given 1st time bound promotion by the respondent no. 11 on 28.2.1987 and were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 480 to 680 with effect from 1.4.1981. The petitioners started getting salary in the pay scale of Rs. 480 to 680 with effect from 1.4.1981, but they were placed in the lower pay scale of Rs. 315 to 480 by the respondent no. 2, the works Manager of the Corporation on 21.11.1990. They filed CWJC No. 8396 of 1980, which was allowed on 9.9.1991 on the ground that the order dated 21.11.1990 was passed without affording then any opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the petitioners were issued show cause notices to which they filed a joint show cause. On 22.5.1992, the respondent no. 2 rejected the claim of the petitioner for the pay scale of Rs. 480 to 680 and placed them in the lower pay scale of Rs. 375 to 480. Therefore, the petitioners were issued show cause notices to which they filed a joint show cause. On 22.5.1992, the respondent no. 2 rejected the claim of the petitioner for the pay scale of Rs. 480 to 680 and placed them in the lower pay scale of Rs. 375 to 480. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the recorded. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contented that the respondent no. 1 has erred in granting the petitioners 1st time bound promotion by placing them in the Junior Selection Grade in the cadre of Helpers, while under rules, they should have been granted the pay scale of Artisan ‘C’ or Mechanic ‘C’. According to him, the petitioner, on being granted time bound, promotion were entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 480 to 680 as against the pay scale of Rs. 375 to 480, granted to him. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Corporation contented that under time bound promotion, the petitioner were entitled to be placed in the higher pay scale in the same cadre and not in the pay scale of higher cadre. In other words, the claim of the petitioners that they were entitled for the pay scale of next higher post, namely, Artisan ‘C’ or Mechanic ‘C’ is wrong. 7. Having considered the argument of the learned counsel. I am of the view that the petitioners have been rightly placed in the pay scale of Rs. 375 to 480 in the cadre of Helpers. When the scheme of time bound promotion was introduced by the 4th pay Revision Committee, there were two Selection Grades in the cadre of Helper viz. Junior Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade with pay scale of Rs. 375 to 480 and Rs. 350 to 425, and therefore, the Helper in the Corporation were entitled for Junior Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade on being granted 1st and 2nd time bound promotion respectively. 8. The time bound promotion cannot be legally equated with regular promotion. While in time bound promotion the employees are placed in higher grace in the same cadre, in regular promotion, they are placed in higher cadre. 8. The time bound promotion cannot be legally equated with regular promotion. While in time bound promotion the employees are placed in higher grace in the same cadre, in regular promotion, they are placed in higher cadre. This being so, the claim of the petitioners that they were entitled for the pay scale of next higher cadre Artisan ‘C’ or Mechanic ‘C’ is not legally sustainable. 9. In this connection it will be relevant to reproduce paragraph 10 of the report of the 4th pay Revision Committee which reads thus : “(i) Provision for two promotion to each and every Corporation employee, the first by the end of 10 years of service and the second by the end of 25 years of service will be made. (ii) If an employee who is otherwise fit for promotion and has not been able to get a single promotion by 10 years of service notwithstanding the fact that a specified percentage of the cadre is already provided in the different levels of promotion inclusive of the Selection Grade, he will be promoted to the Jr. Selection Grade at the end of the tenth year. xxx xxx xxx (iv) The aforesaid facilities will be extended to all employees whether they belong to any formally constituted cadre or not and including employees holding isolated posts. In their case, the pay scale immediately higher than the pay scale prescribed for the basis poss will be considered as the pay scale for the Jr. Selection Grade, and the pay scale immediately higher to that of the aforesaid Jr. Selection Grade will be deemed to be the pay scale for the Sr. Selection Grade. 10. From clause 4, it is clear that the pay scale immediately higher than the pay scale prescribed for the basis post will be considered as the pay scale of the Jr. Selection Grade, and the pay scale immediately higher to that of the aforesaid Jr. Selection Grade will be deemed to be the pay scale for the Sr. Selection Grade. Thus, it is clear that the Ist and the 2nd time bound promotions are meant for granting higher pay scale in the same cadre and not the pay scale of higher cadre. 11. In my opinion, the respondent no. Selection Grade will be deemed to be the pay scale for the Sr. Selection Grade. Thus, it is clear that the Ist and the 2nd time bound promotions are meant for granting higher pay scale in the same cadre and not the pay scale of higher cadre. 11. In my opinion, the respondent no. 1 did not commit any error by placing the petitioners in Junior Selection Grade in the cadre of Helpers while granting Ist time bound promotion. The claim of the petitioners for the scale of next higher posts, namely, Artisan ‘C’ or Mechanic ‘C’ is liable to be rejected. 12. Now, it remains to be seen whether the Corporation is entitled to recover the amount already paid by them to the petitioners under the order dated 28.2.1987 of the respondent no. 1 No doubt, the petitioners were placed in the pay scale of Rs, 480 to 680 by mistake, but to permit the respondents to recover the excess amount already paid to them, would cause great injustice and harassment to them. They were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 480 to 680 by the respondent no. 1 on his own and, therefore even if, they were paid excess amount by mistake, they cannot be blamed for it. Moreover, the petitioners are admittedly very low paid employees and therefore. If the excess amount paid to them is recovered from, them they will face great financial hardship. This being so, it will not be appropriate to permit the respondents to recover the excess amount already paid to the petitioners. 13. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 22.5.1992 of the respondent no. 1 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) son far it directs recovered of the excess amount paid to the petitioners, is quashed and the respondents are restrained from recovering any amount from them on the basis there of. 14. No order as to costs.