JUDGMENT 1. Challenge this batch of petitions is to the order dated 6th December, 2000 (Annexure P/9 to W.P. No. 254/2002) whereby the benefits granted earlier by order dated 4th May, 2000 (Annexure P/7 to W.P. No. 254/2002) to the petitioners was directed to be withdrawn. Thus, these petitions namely W.P. No.254/2002, 306/2002, 305/2002, 307/2002, 308/2002,311/2002,443/2002, 448/2002, 449/2002, 450/2002, 543/2002, 54412002, 545/2002, 554/2002, 555/2002, 556/2002, 557/2002, 558/2002, 564/2002, 56512002, 660/2002, 903/2002,2771/2002,315/2003,638/2003,94912003, 950/2003, 951/2003, 1003/2003, 1124/2003,1125/2003, 1155/2003 and 3055/2003 are being considered and disposed of by this common order. 2. The indisputable facts in brief are that the petitioners are working as Assistant Professors in the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya (for short 'the IGKVV'). Initially, the petitioners were granted the benefit of 4th Pay Commission and Career Advancement Scheme. Thereafter, the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission was accepted by the Government of India and the same was extended to the Stale Agricultural Universities through respondent-Indian Council of Agricultural Research (for short 'the ICAR ') under the scheme. On 27th July, 1998 the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Department (for short 'the MHRD ') sent a letter/circular to the Secretary, University Grants Commission (for short 'the UGC ') for revision of pay-scales of the teachers in Universities and Colleges following the revision of pay scales of Central Government employees on the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission. On the same date, a letter/circular was written to the Education Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories stating that the financial assistances would be provided for the period pt January, 1996 to 31st March, 2000 for that purpose. The Central Government made a provision for financial assistance to the extent of 80% of the total expenditure involved for implementation of the revision and 20% of the expenditure was to be borne by the State Government. Clause 8 of the letter/ circular stated that the scheme applies to the teachers in all Universities (including Agricultural Universities) and colleges (excluding Agricultural, Medical and Veterinary Science Colleges) admitted to the privileges of the Universities. Clause 8 of the letter/ circular stated that the scheme applies to the teachers in all Universities (including Agricultural Universities) and colleges (excluding Agricultural, Medical and Veterinary Science Colleges) admitted to the privileges of the Universities. The UGC sent letter/circular to the Vice Chancellors of all the Universities, Education Secretaries of the States and the Union Territories staling that the UGC expects that the entire scheme of revision of pay scales together with all the conditions attached to it, would be implemented by the State Governments as a composite scheme without any modifications, except the date of implementation and the scales of pay as indicated in Government of India notification dated 22nd July, 1998, 22nd September, 1998 and 6th November, 1998 (Annexure P/3 to W.P. No. 254/ 2002). It was further expected that necessary changes in their statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations should be made. On 3rd March, 1999 (Annexure P/4 to W.P. No. 254/2002), the Ministry of Agriculture, Director of Agricultural Research and Education (for short 'DARE ') New Delhi, sent a letter/circular to the Chief Secretaries of all the States for revision of pay scales of the teachers in Agricultural Universities and Colleges following the pay scales of the Central Government employees on the recommendation of the 5th Central Pay Commission. In the scheme, clause 4(iii) provides for career advancement also. Pursuant to the above stated letter/circular dated 3rd March, 1999 of the Ministry of Agriculture, the then State of Madhya Pradesh, by order dated 8th October, 1999 (Annexure P/5 to W.P. No. 254/2002) accepted the proposal observing that the revised pay scales would be applicable with effect from 01st January, 1996 subject to the conditions and direction that 80% of the expenditure would be borne by ICAR and 20% of the expenditure would be made by the State Government. It was further provided that the teachers/officers would be entitled to increments and allowances also granted time to time by the State Government from 1st January, 1999. The respondent University, by order dated 20th October, 1999 (Annexure P/6) by order, accepted the revised pay scales for payment to the officers, teachers. Librarians, P.T.I., Sports Officers etc. in the same terms and conditions payable w.e.f. 1st January, 1996. Individual orders were passed on 4th May, 2000 (Annexure P/7 to W.P. No. 254 of 2002). The respondent University, by order dated 20th October, 1999 (Annexure P/6) by order, accepted the revised pay scales for payment to the officers, teachers. Librarians, P.T.I., Sports Officers etc. in the same terms and conditions payable w.e.f. 1st January, 1996. Individual orders were passed on 4th May, 2000 (Annexure P/7 to W.P. No. 254 of 2002). The said order came into effect forthwith in case of the petitioners who completed 9 years of service With Ph.D. as Assistant Professor, Senior Scale, and 11 years in case of those petitioners who did not have Ph.D. Other petitioners were given the benefit on the date of completion of the requisite 9 years and 11 years respectively in the scale of Assistant Professor/Scientist Senior Scale. On 19th July, 2000 (Annexure P/8 to W.P. No. 254/2008) the ICAR again sent a communication to the Chief Secretaries of all the States reiterating that the revised career advancement scheme for the teachers working in the State Agricultural Universities and Colleges would be effective from 1st January, 1996. Thereafter, on 6th December, 2000. (Annexure P/9 to W.P. No. 254/2002) the ICAR communicated to the Directors/Project Directors/NRCs/Bureaux of ICAR/Chief Secretaries of all the States, cancelling the earlier scheme and making the same effective w.e.f 27th July, 1998. Thus, these petitions questioning the legality and validity of the impugned letter/circular dated 6th December, 2000. 3. The effective dates of implementation of career advancement scheme in case of the petitioners, as projected by learned counsel for the petitioners are as under: 4. Shri Neelabh Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that pursuant to various orders and letters/circulars issued time to lime, the petitioners were granted the benefit immediately of the revised pay scale and the revised career advancement scheme effective for the petitioners w.e.f. 1st January, 1996 and thereafter. Shri Dubey would further submit that it is well-settled principle of law that the benefits granted to an employee cannot be withdrawn with retrospective effect. There is no reason to change the date of grant of benefit of the revised pay and career advancement scheme. The same was done in a most arbitrary manner after giving effect to the revised career advancement scheme from 1st January, 1996. The administrative instructions and circulars may not have retrospective effect. There is no reason to change the date of grant of benefit of the revised pay and career advancement scheme. The same was done in a most arbitrary manner after giving effect to the revised career advancement scheme from 1st January, 1996. The administrative instructions and circulars may not have retrospective effect. In support of his contention, Shri Dubey relies on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. Raghvendra Acharya & Others Vs. State of Karnataka & Others', Govind Prasad Vs. R. G.Parsad & Others2. It was next contended that there cannot be any recovery of the benefits granted earlier to an employee. In support of his contention, he relies on Syed Abdul Qadir & others Vs. State of Bihar & Others3, Shyam Babu Verma & Others Vs. Union of India4, Purushottam Lal Das & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others5. 5. On the other hand, Shri Alok Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for Shri A.S.Gaharwar, learned Advocate for the respondent-ICAR would submit that the letter/circular dated 20th July, 1998 of the MHRD to the UGC, a decision of the Government of India to revise the pay scales of the teachers in the Central Universities on the basis of 5th Pay Commission was communicated. The said letter/circular provided for career advancement scheme also. It was stated that the revised pay scales would be granted w.e.f. 1st January, 1996. On the same date, the MHRD issued one more letter/circular to the Education Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories providing that the financial assistance would be made available to the State Government to the extent of 80% for adopting and implementing the revision of pay scales on the basis of 5th Pay Commission w.e.f. 1st January, 1996. It was directed to furnish the scheme before the Central Government for grant of central assistance. The UGC further sent a letter/circular to the Vice Chancellors of all the Universities and the Education Secretary of all the States and Union Territories enclosing a copy of the notification of the UGC of 1998 for payment of revised pay scales. It was directed to furnish the scheme before the Central Government for grant of central assistance. The UGC further sent a letter/circular to the Vice Chancellors of all the Universities and the Education Secretary of all the States and Union Territories enclosing a copy of the notification of the UGC of 1998 for payment of revised pay scales. On 3rd March, 1993, the DARE further sent a letter/circular to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories and informed that the ICAR has decided to grant benefit of revised pay scale and revised advancement of career scheme to ICAR scientists and others in the State Agricultural Universities also w.e.f. 1st January, 1996. The then State of Madhya Pradesh accepted the recommendation of the DARE and passed an order on 8th October, 1999 granting revised pay scales with revised career advancement to the petitioners working in the Agricultural Universities w.e.f. 1st January, 1996. The respondent University directed for implementation of the revised pay scale and career advancement of teachers and other staffs by order dated 20th October, 1999 (Annexure P/6 to W.P. No. 254/2002). Accordingly, the petitioners were promoted and given the revised pay scales and the career advancement scheme w.e.f. 1st January, 1996. It is true that the ICAR issued another letter/circular on 19 July, 2000 stating that the revision of pay scales and career advancement scheme for teachers in State Agricultural Universities, would be made effective from 15t January, 1996. The impugned order dated 6th December, 2000 was passed on the basis of the reconm1endation of the Ministry of Finance (for short 'the MoF'). The ICAR is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is fully financed by the Government of India. Thus, any decision in relation to service matters of the teachers of the State Agricultural Universities approval of the MoF is required. Since the revised pay scale was granted to the teachers of other Universities under the control of the UGC w.e.f. 27th July, 1998, accordingly, the same was made effective to the Agricultural Universities also. The decision was taken on the basis of review of the MoF. The petitioners have not challenged any particular order except the order dated 6th December, 2000, thus, they are not entitled to any relief. 6. The decision was taken on the basis of review of the MoF. The petitioners have not challenged any particular order except the order dated 6th December, 2000, thus, they are not entitled to any relief. 6. Smt. Fouzia Mirza, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondent/Union of India would submit that the career advancement scheme was made effective from 27th July, 1998 by the MHRD and the ICAR cannot take contrary decision to give effect to teachers of Agricultural Universities w.e.f. 1st January, 1996. Thus, all the earlier letters/circulars issued making the revised pay scale and career advancement scheme effective w.e.f. 1st January, 1996 was without approval of the MoF and the MHRD is competent to revise its decision on the basis of the decision of the MoF subsequently. Accordingly, the circular dated 6th December, 2000 issued by the ICAR cannot be faulted with. 7. Shri Manindra Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Shri Amit Verma, learned Advocate for the respondents/IGKVV, and Shri M.P.S.Bhatia. learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State would submit that the decision of this Court would be final and the order passed by the respondent University was in accordance with the instructions/letters/circulars and decision taken by the State of Madhya Pradesh. The I CAR is competent authority to give guidelines, therefore, the impugned letter/circular dated 6th December, 2000 whereby the date of implementation was modified from 1st January, 1996 to 27th July, 1998, cannot be challenged. The petitioners have not acquired any right on the basis of letter/circular issued to them and grant of the benefit of revised pay scale and career advancement scheme to them w.e.f. 1st January, 1996. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. The letter/circular dated 6th December, 2000 was stayed by this Court on 20th February, 2002. Thus, no effect could be given to the impugned letter/ circular dated 6th December, 2000 and the petitioners have been enjoying the benefit of revised pay scale and the career advancement scheme w.e.f. 1st January, 1996. 10. The letter/circular dated 27th July, 1998 (Annexure P/l to WP No. 254/2002) issued by the MHRD provides for effective date from 15t January, 1996. 10. The letter/circular dated 27th July, 1998 (Annexure P/l to WP No. 254/2002) issued by the MHRD provides for effective date from 15t January, 1996. Clause (b) and (c) of the said letter/circular, inter alia reads as under: "(b) For the period from 1.1.96 to the day on which these decisions take effect, pay will be fixed in the replacement scales recommended by the UGC appointed Pay Review Committee as per Annexure-II (withdrawn later vide letter dated 6th November, 1998 of Ministry of Human Resources Development). (c) Pay with effect from 1.1.96 in the revised scale of pay will be fixed after giving the benefit of one increment for every three increments earned in the pre-revised scales as stipulated in Rule 7 of Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997, and governed by other relevant provisions of Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 as applicable." 11. The other letter/circular of the MHRD dated 27th July. 1998 (Annexure P/2 to W.P. No. 254/2002) addressed to the Education Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories, inter alia provides as under: "(a) The Central Government will provide financial assistance to the State Governments which have opted for these revised pay scales to the extent of 80% of the additional expenditure involved in the implementation of the revision. (b) The State Government will meet the remaining 20% of the expenditure from their own sources. (d) The financial assistance, indicated above, would be provided for the period from 1.1.1996 to 31.3.2000. 3. The State Government, after taking local conditions into consideration, may also decide their discretion to introduce scales of pay different from those mentioned in the Scheme, and may give effect to the revised scales of pay from January 1, 1996, or a later date. In such cases, the details of the modifications proposed either to the scales of pay or the date from which the Scheme is to be implemented, should be furnished to the Government of India for its approval and, subject to the approval being accorded to the modifications, Central assistance on the same terms and conditions as indicated above will be available to the State Governments for implementation of the Scheme with such modifications, provided that the modified scales of pay are not higher than those approved under the Scheme. 8. 8. The Scheme applies to teachers in all Universities (including Agricultural Universities) and colleges (excluding Agricultural, Medical and Veterinary Science Colleges) admitted to the privileges of the Universities." 12. The letter/circular dated 24th December, 1998 (Annexure P/3 to W.P.No. 254/2002) of the UGC addressed to the Vice Chancellors of all the Universities, Education Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories, infer alia, in clause 5 provides as under: "5. The University Grants Commission expects that the entire scheme of revision of pay scales, together with all the conditions attached to it, would be implemented by the State Governments as a composite scheme without any modifications, except the date of implementation and the scales of pay as indicated in Government of India notification No. F.I.-22/97-IU dated 27.7.98, 22.9.98 and 6.11.98. It shall be necessary for the Universities and the Management of Colleges to make the necessary changes in their statues, ordinances, rules, regulations etc, to incorporate the provisions of this scheme." 13. The letter/circular dated 3rd March, 1999 (Annexure P/4 to W.P. No.254/2002) of the Ministry of Agriculture, DARE, inter alia, provides as under: "The revised Pay scale, Incentives for Degrees, and Career Advancement Scheme extended to CAU and SAUs will be as detailed in this letter. Copies of the notification issued by the Ministry of HRD vide the letter No. 1-22/87-U.l, dated 27.7.98,22.9.98 and 6.11.98 alongwith its enclosure are at enclosed (Annexure 1) (iii) Career Advancement: (a) Minimum length of service for eligibility to move into the grade of Lecturer (Sr. scale)/ Asstt. Professor (Senior Scale) would be four years for those with Ph.D. five years for those with M.Phil and six years for others as Assistant Professor/Lecturer and for eligibility to move into the Grade of Assistant Professor (Selection Grade)/ Lecturer (Selection Grade/Associate Professor/Reader, the minimum length of service as Lecturer (Sr. Scale)/ Assistant Professor (Senior Scale) shall be uniformly five years. (b) For movement into grades of Associate Professor/Reader and the above, the minimum eligibility criterion would be Ph.D. Those teachers without Ph.D. can go upto the level of Assistant Professor (Selection Grade )/Lecturer (Selection Grade). (c) An Associate Professor/Reader with a minimum of eight years of service will be eligible for consideration for appointment as a Professor. (d) For every upward movement, a selection process would be evolved, for which appropriate guidelines would be laid down by the ICAR. (c) An Associate Professor/Reader with a minimum of eight years of service will be eligible for consideration for appointment as a Professor. (d) For every upward movement, a selection process would be evolved, for which appropriate guidelines would be laid down by the ICAR. (v) Allowances, effective date and fitment formula: (a) While the revised scales of pay as contained in the Annexure-Ill will be given effect from 1.1.96, allowances at the revised rates will be effective from August, 1997. (b) Pay with effect from 1.1.96 in the revised scales of Pay will be fixed after giving the benefit of one increment for every three increments earned in the pre-revised scales as stipulated in Rule 7 of Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 and governed by other relevant provisions of Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 as applicable. (c) Pay in the revised scales of pay as at Annexure-III of this letter shall be fixed at the same stage with reference to the stage admissible vide para (b) above. In cases where the same stage is not available, the pay may be fixed at the stage next above the pay admissible vide para (b) above. (d) Teachers in SAUs will be entitled to Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, Transport Allowance, City Compensatory Allowance and other allowances at the same rates and dates as applicable in the respective State Governments. (e) Teachers in Central Agricultural University, Imphal will be entitled to Dearness Allowance, House Rent allowance, Transport Allowance, City Compensatory Allowance and other allowances at the same rates and dates as applicable to the Central Government employees. 8. The revision of pay scales is further subject to the following conditions: i The pay scales and the service conditions of SAUs/CAUs personnel will be determined only by ICAR and that decision taken by UGC in this regard will not be applicable unless they are accepted by the ICAR. ii. The ICAR will provide assistance to the State Governments to the extent of 80% of the expenditure involved in giving effect to the revision of scales of pay. iii. The assistance to the extent mentioned above will be available for the period from 1.1.96 to 31.3.2000. The State Government will meet the remaining 20% of the expenditure from their own resources and will not pass on the liabilities to the State Agricultural Universities. iv. iii. The assistance to the extent mentioned above will be available for the period from 1.1.96 to 31.3.2000. The State Government will meet the remaining 20% of the expenditure from their own resources and will not pass on the liabilities to the State Agricultural Universities. iv. The State Government will take over the entire responsibility for maintaining the revised scales of pay w.e.f 1.4.2000. v. The assistance will be restricted to the revision of pay scales of only those posts which were in existence as on January 1, 1996. vi. 80% of the assistance will be given to those states only which give a clear communication of the State Governments to meet 20% of the expenditure. vii. The State Governments will ensure that the State Agricultural Universities will abide by the service conditions of teachers/faculties laid down by the ICAR regulations." 14. The then State of Madhya Pradesh by order dated 8th October, 1999 accepted the recommendation made by the Ministry of Agriculture, DARE dated 3rd March. 1999 and passed an order that all the officers, teachers, librarians, PTI, sports officers working in the Agricultural Universities would be granted revised pay scales w.e.f. 1st January, 1996, with the following conditions. 15. Annexure-l to the order i.e. the scheme of revision of pay scales and fixation of pay and other measures for maintenance of standards in agriculture education (page 55 of the paper book in W.P. No. 254/2002) clearly provides that the date of implementation of the revised scales of pay will be effective from January 1, 1996. A provision was made for career advancement scheme also. The respondent-University by order dated 20th October, 1999 (Annexure P/6 to WP No. 254/2002) made revised pay scale and career advancement effective from 1st January, 1996. Accordingly, the petitioners were granted benefit of revised pay scales on the basis of the recommendation of selection committee in career advancement scheme w.e.f. the date shown against their names. 16. On 19th July, 2000, the ICAR forwarded one more letter/circular to the Chief Secretaries of all the States stating as under: "A copy of the revised Career Advancement Scheme for the Teachers in the State Agricultural Universities and Colleges effective from 1.1.96 is accordingly sent herewith for information and necessary action." 17. 16. On 19th July, 2000, the ICAR forwarded one more letter/circular to the Chief Secretaries of all the States stating as under: "A copy of the revised Career Advancement Scheme for the Teachers in the State Agricultural Universities and Colleges effective from 1.1.96 is accordingly sent herewith for information and necessary action." 17. The proposal of career advancement scheme of the teachers in the State Agricultural Universities and Central Universities was clearly stated in the letter/circular dated 19th July, 2000. Then the subsequent impugned letter/circular dated 6th December, 2000 was issued whereby the earlier circular dated 19th July, 2000 was modified to the extent of its effective date i.e. 1st January, 1996 was modified to 27th July, 1998. 18. It is evident from all the letters/circulars issued by the MHRD, UGC, Ministry of Agriculture, DARE and ICAR that till 19th July, 2000, the implementation date of revised pay scale and career advancement scheme was 1st January, 1996. The benefits were also granted to the petitioners. Reliance on notification dated 27th July, 1998, 22nd September, 1998 and 6th November, 1998 in the letter/ notification dated 24th December, 1998 makes further clear that the date of implementation was 1st January, 1996, as is apparent from the notification/letter dated 27th July, 1998. The other letters/circulars dated 22nd September, 1998 and 6th November, 1998 have not been produced by either parties. Even otherwise, once the benefits have been granted to the petitioners pursuant to earlier circulars/ letters/notifications, the same cannot be withdrawn by subsequent executive letter/ circular dated 6th December, 2000. 19. In Govind Prasad2 (supra) relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court observed that it is well settled that executive order of the Government cannot be made operative with retrospective effect unless the same are incorporated in the statutory rules. 20. The question before the Supreme Court in Bejgam Veeranna Venkata Narsimloo & Others Vs. State of A.P & Others6, was that whether the State Government can give fix procurement price of the rice retrospectively, it was observed as under: "18. The High Court was of the view that merely because a subordinate legislation was given effect to from an anterior date, it cannot be treated as a piece of retrospective subordinate legislation. State of A.P & Others6, was that whether the State Government can give fix procurement price of the rice retrospectively, it was observed as under: "18. The High Court was of the view that merely because a subordinate legislation was given effect to from an anterior date, it cannot be treated as a piece of retrospective subordinate legislation. It was held that a subordinate legislation can be said to be retrospective only when it took away or impaired any vested right acquired w1der existing laws or created new obligations or imposed a new duty or attached a new disability in respect to transactions or considerations already past. Reliance was placed upon Craies on Statute Law, 6th Edn., p. 386. It was held that by notification dated 24-2-1977, the Government did not reduce in any way the price legally payable to the appellants because there was no such price in existence nor did it alter in any way the legal rights of the appellants with regard to their sales for the second year. 19. We are unable to follow how the High Court could come to the conclusion that the vested right of the appellants had not been disturbed in any way by the subordinate legislation. Rice has been sold under a procurement order and a right to be paid in terms of that Order had accrued to the seller as soon as sale of rice was effected. As a matter of fact, the FCI did pay the appellants the price for the rice purchased. If a portion of the price paid by the FCI is taken away, the appellants will be prejudicially affected. They not only had acquired a vested right to be paid but actually received payment for the rice sold. If the rice was delivered without any valid procurement order, the sellers were entitled to be paid at the market rate in terms of Section 70 of the Contract Act. The retrospective subordinate legislation has tried to take away a portion of the money the appellants had lawfully obtained. 20. We are of the view that the decision of the High Court is clearly erroneous. The recoveries which are now sought to be made from the appellants are clearly unlawful and unjust....." 21. The retrospective subordinate legislation has tried to take away a portion of the money the appellants had lawfully obtained. 20. We are of the view that the decision of the High Court is clearly erroneous. The recoveries which are now sought to be made from the appellants are clearly unlawful and unjust....." 21. In U.PRaghvendra Acharya & Other1 (supra), the Supreme Court, while considering the question asto whether the employees having been given effect the benefit of revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.96 could have been deprived of the retiral benefits calculated the effect therefrom observed as under: "23... ..It is now well settled that a notification can be issued by the State accepting the recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee with retrospective effect as it was beneficent to the employees. Once such a retrospective effect is given to the recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee, the employees concerned despite their reaching the age of superannuation in between the said dates and/or the date of issuance of the notification would be deemed to be getting the said scales of pay as on 1-1-1996. By reason of such notification, as the appellants had been deprived of a vested right, they could not have been deprived therefrom and that too by reason of executive instructions." 22. In respect of the payment made to the employees not on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employees, the Supreme, Court in Shyam Babu Verma & Others4 (supra), the Supreme Court observed as under: "11. Although we have held that the petitioners were entitled only to the pay scale of Rs. 330-480 in terms of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission w.e.f. January 1, 1973 and only after the period of 10 years, they became entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 330-560 but as they have received the scale of Rs. 330-560 since 1973 due to no fault of theirs and that scale is being reduced in the year 1984 with effect from January 1, 1973, it shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount which has already been paid to them. Accordingly, we direct that no steps should be taken to recover or to adjust any excess amount paid to the petitioners due to the fault of the respondents, the petitioners being in no way responsible for the same." 23. Accordingly, we direct that no steps should be taken to recover or to adjust any excess amount paid to the petitioners due to the fault of the respondents, the petitioners being in no way responsible for the same." 23. In Syed Abdul Qadir & others3 (supra), the Supreme Court having considered all the decision on the recovery of excess payment, observed as under: "57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if(a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter-affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the Rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made." 24. The decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Arun Jyoti Kundu & Others7, relied on by learned counsel appearing for the Union of India is not relevant to the facts of the case on hand as the recommendation made by the Central Government was duly accepted by the State Government and the University-respondent has passed the order accordingly granting benefits to the petitioners. 25. Arun Jyoti Kundu & Others7, relied on by learned counsel appearing for the Union of India is not relevant to the facts of the case on hand as the recommendation made by the Central Government was duly accepted by the State Government and the University-respondent has passed the order accordingly granting benefits to the petitioners. 25. Reduction of pay-scale subsequently by change of date of its implementation by subsequent circular would be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (See U.P.Raghavendra Acharya & others1 (supra) para 29) 26. For the reasons aforestated, the circular/letter dated 6th December, 2000 (Annexure P/9 to W.P. No. 254/2002) is quashed to the extent that the petitioners who were granted benefits pursuant to the earlier circulars/notifications shall not be disturbed. The date of implementation i.e. 1st January, 1996 cannot be changed subsequently by notification dated 6th December, 2000. 27. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. Petitions Allowed.