JUDGMENT : 1. Heard further argument from Learned Counsel for the Petitioners in each of the Writ Petitions and Learned Counsel for Berhampur University and the Judgment is as follows: 2. Shri Lokanath Mahapatra is the Petitioner in O.J.C. No. 9712 of 1993. The undisputed case between the parties is that pursuant to the Notification, Annexure-B/1 dated 7.11.1986, the Employment Exchange was asked to sponsor candidates to fill up the posts of Junior Assistant in the Berhampur University in the scale of pay of Rs. 780-1160/-. The case of the Petitioner was sponsored by Employment Exchange and Mr. Mahapatra was selected by the University, and granted appointment. He submitted his joining report on 11.3.1987. His pay was fixed at initial stage as advertised. Two years after, i.e., in the year, 1989, he claimed for protection of his pay in the erstwhile employment, i.e., in Berhampur Cooperative Central Bank, in view of the General Order issued by the Finance Department in F.D. No. 31504/F dated 16.6.1980. On consideration of such representation, Shri Mahapatra was granted pay protection as per his Last Pay Certificate received from the Berhampur Cooperative Central-Bank, and, thereafter, he was provided with increments from year to year as per order, Annexure-1. Petitioner was confirmed in the post of Junior Assistant with effect from 1.4.1900 as per order Annexure-2 dated 11.8.1990. When the matter stood thus, the other Junior Assistants of Berhmapur University, who were seniors in service to Mr. Mahapatra, claimed for step up of their pay. Such representations of such employees were also considered and allowed by Berhampur University but subject to stipulation that they would furnish undertaking to refund the excess amount disbursed to them, if such occasion arises. Because of audit objection to the aforesaid orders, and even after considering the compliance report, Annexure-3 of Berhampur University, the direction from the Audit necessitated the Berhampur University to pass order, Annexure-4 in which it was ordered that: The pay protection allowed to Sri Lokanath Mohapatra, Junior Assistant vide this Office Order No. 15410/Admn-ll/BU/89 dtd.14.12.89 is hereby cancelled. Consequently, order was also passed for recovery,of the excess amount paid to the other Junior Assistants who had been granted higher scale by stepping up of their pay.Thus, Mr. Mahapatra, the Petitioner.-in O.J.C. No. 9712 of 1993, has filed this Writ Petition to quash the order, Annexure-4. Consequently, order was also passed for recovery,of the excess amount paid to the other Junior Assistants who had been granted higher scale by stepping up of their pay.Thus, Mr. Mahapatra, the Petitioner.-in O.J.C. No. 9712 of 1993, has filed this Writ Petition to quash the order, Annexure-4. Similarly; 27 Junior Assistants from the Berhampur University have filed O.J.C. No. 503 of 1994 challenging the order of recovery dated 20.11.1993, Annexure-4. 3. Contention of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in each of the Writ Petitions is that grant of pay protection to the Petitioner is not only reasonable but also in view of the provisions of the University Statute, 1988 and F.D. No. 31504/F dated 16.6.1980, and, therefore, the audit objection is wrong and consequentially the order of the Berhampur University to cancel the pay protection, is liable to be quashed. 4. Since the Petitioner was appointed in 1987, i.e., prior to 1988 Statute came into force, it is admitted at the bar that in absence of any provision for providing retrospective operation of any provision that statute is not applicable to the copies of the Petitioner's. Apart from that, it is the contention of Mr. B.S. Mishra, Learned Counsel for Berhampur University that F.D. N0.31504/F dated 16.6.1980 is not at all applicable to the case of the parties and for reasons best known the officers in the University wrongly adopted that F.D. in favour of the Petitioner in each of the Writ Petitions. We find sufficient substance in that argument inasmuch as at the outset in F. D. No . 31504/F dated 16.6.1980, it has been stated that "Protection of pay/condonation of break in service etc. of retrenched Government employees on subsequent appointment under the Government.-New appointments are at times made in Government Departments/Offices by giving preference to retrenched employees. Government have decided that in such cases, benefits of condonation of break in service, protection of pay etc. may be allowed as indicated below. 5. In view of the aforesaid language in that F.D. and in view of the advertisement, Annexure-B/1, we agree with the argument of Mr. Mishra that the Petitioner in O.J.C. No. 9712 of 1993 is not entitled to pay protection, which was claimed by him and granted by the University wrongly. may be allowed as indicated below. 5. In view of the aforesaid language in that F.D. and in view of the advertisement, Annexure-B/1, we agree with the argument of Mr. Mishra that the Petitioner in O.J.C. No. 9712 of 1993 is not entitled to pay protection, which was claimed by him and granted by the University wrongly. Under such circumstances, when rightly the audit pointed out the defect and that has been complied by the University and passed the order, Annexure-4, that is not to be interfered with. In that respect, we find that ratio in the case of Shyam Babu Verma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1994) 2 (SC) 260 is not applicable to the present case because of the distinguishable facts and circumstances. Thus, O.J.C. No. 9712 of 1993 does not bear any merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. 6. Before parting with the above O.J.C, we may observe that Petitioner may make a representation to the Chancellor against the order of recovery, if any, and keeping in view the ratio of the Judgment in Paragraph-9 of the case of Shyam Babu Verma (supra), Learned Chancellor may take appropriate view. The aforesaid aspect may be attended to, if the Petitioner makes a representation within a month. 7. So far as the claim of the Petitioners in O.J.C. No. 503 of 1994 is concerned, since the order of recovery is on the basis of the undertaking given by the Petitioners and when in view of the aforesaid order the claim for stepping up of pay no longer exists, therefore, that Writ Petition does, not bear any merit. 8. Accordingly, O.J.C. No. 503 of 1994 is also dismissed. 9. We also make similar observation that if so legally advised, Petitioners may put-forth their grievance before the Hon'ble Chancellor as against the order of recovery for compassionate consideration.