Judgment : A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Bimal Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, Mr. H. Nabakumar Singh, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Kh. Babulindro Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State respondents as well as Mr. Ananda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4. 2. The only grievance projected in this writ appeal is pertaining to non-consideration of the impugned orders dated 7.12.1995 and 14.12.1995 issued by the Under Secretary (Edn.), Govt. of Manipur and the Director of Education (S), Govt. of Manipur being appended as Annexures-A/8 and A/9 to the C.R. No. 8 of 1996 respectively, by which it was ordered that the graduate teachers downgraded to the post of under-graduate teachers should get their pay and allowances as under-graduate teachers and the excess pay including the D.A. and other allowances already drawn by those teachers be recovered on monthly instalment basis by the learned Single Judge while passing the common judgment and order on 16.5.1997 wherein the State respondents were directed to prepare a fresh list of the under-graduate teachers eligible for being upgraded as graduate teachers in the graduate scale of pay in pursuance of the agreement entered into between the Govt. of Manipur and the representatives of All Manipur Secondary Teachers Assn. on 13.12.1987 for upgradation of the undergraduate teachers to graduate teachers specifying certain guidelines recorded in Clauses (A) to (F) in paragraph 19 therein. 3. For the sake of convenience, the above mentioned guidelines so framed by the learned Single Judge may be reproduced as under: (A) The Govt. may fix a cut-off date to consider the eligibility of Under-Graduate Teachers having degree of B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. for the purpose of ascertaining Eight years regular service. Govt. may fix the cut-off date either as 1.1.1986 and if Govt. considers that more teachers should be brought under the scheme of upgradation, the Govt. may fix 31.12.1988 or any latter date, but such cut-off date cannot be earlier than 13.12.1987; (B) According to the cut-off date fixed by the Govt. all eligible Under-Graduate teachers having degree in B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. Govt. may fix the cut-off date either as 1.1.1986 and if Govt. considers that more teachers should be brought under the scheme of upgradation, the Govt. may fix 31.12.1988 or any latter date, but such cut-off date cannot be earlier than 13.12.1987; (B) According to the cut-off date fixed by the Govt. all eligible Under-Graduate teachers having degree in B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. with regular service of eight years in the grade of Under-Graduate Teacher shall be upgraded to the Graduate teacher with Graduate teacher scale of pay w.e.f. the cut-off date to be fixed by the Govt.: It is made clear that the degree holder Matriculate Teacher who were given Under-Graduate scale of pay by 1990 Revision of Pay Rules should not be considered for upgradation in the grade of Graduate-Teacher scale in view of the fact that they were not appointed in Under-Graduate scale of pay. Those Under-Graduate Teachers who have earned their eligibility after the cut-off date fixed by the Govt. should also not be considered for upgradation in view of the fact that the scheme of upgradation contemplates only one time benefit to the Under-Graduate teachers. (C) On scrutiny and examination of 676 Under-Graduate Teachers who were promoted and upgraded with the approval of the Govt. if it is found that any one or more of them were not eligible for being upgraded in the graduate teacher posts with graduate scale of pay, the order of their upgradation should be cancelled immediately and no notice shall be required for cancelling their such upgradation; (D) Before taking up the scrutiny and re-examination of the cases of eligible Under-Graduate Teachers for upgradation to Graduate Teachers, the respondents shall issue a notification inviting particulars of the Under Graduate Teachers according to the cut-off date fixed by the Govt. in the said notification, it may be made clear that if any Under-Graduate teacher is found not eligible for upgradation, but has been upgraded by the Govt. in pursuance of any earlier orders, then their upgradation will be cancelled without any further reference to them. After receipt of the claims and particulars from the eligible Under-Graduate teachers, the Govt. in the said notification, it may be made clear that if any Under-Graduate teacher is found not eligible for upgradation, but has been upgraded by the Govt. in pursuance of any earlier orders, then their upgradation will be cancelled without any further reference to them. After receipt of the claims and particulars from the eligible Under-Graduate teachers, the Govt. shall make scrutiny and examine their cases with reference to their Service Books and other service particulars maintained in the Department; (E) If any Under-Graduate Teacher is found to be eligible on scrutiny and examination to be upgraded in the Graduate scale of pay, but has not been upgraded earlier, then on upgradation of such eligible Under-Graduate Teacher, his pay shall be fixed notionally by the Govt. and financial benefits will be available from the date of upgradation order issued by the Govt.: Provided that the Under-Graduate teachers who were upgraded but their upgradation order has been cancelled and on scrutiny and examination if such Under-Graduate teachers are found to be eligible for upgradation then in their case the Govt. respondents shall extend the financial benefit to them without any break: (F) The State Govt. is directed to prepare fresh list after scrutiny and examination of all the cases of eligible Under-Graduate Teachers in pursuance of the Agreement dated 13.12.1987, and also in pursuance of the Govt. decision with regard to the cut-off date within a period of three months from today. 4. It is stated at the bar that in compliance of the above direction given by the learned Single Judge for framing the guidelines, the government, vide its order dated 8.3.1999 accepted such direction and actions have been taken accordingly. 5. It is contended by Mr. A. Bimal Singh, learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have no grievance against such direction for framing of the said guideline and appropriate actions taken thereafter upon the same, but there only prayer is that the pay and allowances drawn by the appellants as the graduate teachers at the time of upgradation shall not be recovered pursuant to the impugned orders. Praying for quashment of the impugned orders, he has placed reliance on two decisions of the Apex Court, namely, (1) Shy am Babu Verma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. Praying for quashment of the impugned orders, he has placed reliance on two decisions of the Apex Court, namely, (1) Shy am Babu Verma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1994) I LLJ 815 SC and (2) Jaswant Singh v. Punjab Poultry Field Staff Association and Ors., reported in AIR 2002 SC 231 , wherein the Apex Court ruled that since the petitioners therein received the higher scale due to no fault of theirs, it should only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount paid to them. For discharging their duties in a higher post, the incumbent was at least entitled to the pay and other allowances attributable to that post during the period he carried out such duties [Para 11 of both the cited cases]. 6. It is settled law that higher pay scale given erroneously to the incumbents without any default of theirs shall not be recovered. The interest of justice demands that where service of an employee has been by the State in particular post after upgradation, he shall upon degradation from the said post be entitled to get the salary and allowances of that higher post for the period during which he was holding the same. 7. In the case in hand, the appellants 112 in numbers were upgraded from the under-graduate teachers to the graduate teachers in the graduate scale of pay during the period from 3.7.1990 to 9.10.1992 on the basis of 38 orders passed by the Director of Education (S) who since retired. Their such upgradation was cancelled vide order dated 21.6.1995 and 29.6.1995 passed by the Secretary (Edn.) to the Govt. of Manipur and the Director of Education (S), Govt. of Manipur, (Annexures -A/6 and A/7 to the writ petition) respectively. After such degradation, by the impugned orders dated 7.12.95 and 14.12.95, the appellants were informed that they should get their salary as undergraduate teachers and excess amount of pay including the D.A. and other allowances already paid to them earlier shall be recovered on monthly installment basis. 8. of Manipur, (Annexures -A/6 and A/7 to the writ petition) respectively. After such degradation, by the impugned orders dated 7.12.95 and 14.12.95, the appellants were informed that they should get their salary as undergraduate teachers and excess amount of pay including the D.A. and other allowances already paid to them earlier shall be recovered on monthly installment basis. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and also having regard the settled position of law as laid down in the above cited cases, we are of the view that the State respondents are not entitled to make recovery of the excess pay including D.A. and other allowances as mentioned in the impugned orders that had been paid to the appellants for their services rendered during those periods from the date of their upgradation to graduate teachers till their degradation, from the appellants. Accordingly the impugned orders are hereby quashed and set aside. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. 10. A copy of the notification, dated 8.3.99 placed before this court be kept to form part of this record. No costs.