Judgment Alok Aradhe, J. ( 1. ) THIS order shall govern the disposal of W.P. No. 5858/06 and W.P. No. 9107/09 (S). In both the writ petitions, the petitioners inter alia have challenged the validity of the amendment made in schedule appended to Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1996, which prescribes the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- for the post of Legal Aid Officer. The petitioners, have also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 and the corresponding revised pay-scale to District Legal Aid Officers. The petitioners have also assailed the validity of the order dated 15-1-2003 passed by M.P. State Legal Services Authority by which it is directed that Legal Aid Officers shall be paid the pay in the scale of Rs. 6500-10,500/- instead of scale of pay of Rs. 8000-13,500/- ( 2. ) THE petitioner No. 1 in W.P. No. 5858/06 is an association of Legal Aid Officers, which is a society registered under the provisions of M.P. Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. THE petitioner No. 2 is employed as District Legal Aid Officer. Similarly, petitioners in W.P. No. 9107/07 are the District Legal Aid Officers. Petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6 have superannuated from service, whereas, petitioner Nos. 2 and 5 are still in service. For the facility of reference, facts as narrated W.P. No. 5858/06 (s) are being referred to. THE State Legislature enacted an Act namely "Madhya Pradesh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Liye Vidhik Sahayata Tatha Vidhik Salah Adhiniyam, 1976" (here in after referred to as "the Act"). Section 3 of the Act provided for establishment of Madhya Pradesh Legal Aid Board. Section 16 of the Act empowered the Board to appoint such number of officers and servants as it considered necessary for the efficient discharge of its functions under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Section 17 of the Act provided that remuneration and other conditions of service of the officers and servants of the Board shall be such as may be determined by the Board by Regulations. By a Notification dated 4-5-1976, the Madhya Pradesh Legal Aid Board was constituted under the Act w.e.f. 6-5-1976. THE post of District Legal Officers were sanctioned with the approval of the State Government in the scale of pay of Rs. 425-1050/-. By a Notification dated 4-5-1976, the Madhya Pradesh Legal Aid Board was constituted under the Act w.e.f. 6-5-1976. THE post of District Legal Officers were sanctioned with the approval of the State Government in the scale of pay of Rs. 425-1050/-. An advertisement was issued inviting applications for recruitment to the post of District Legal Aid Officers in the State of Madhya Pradesh. THE members of the petitioner No. 1-association as well as other petitioners submitted their applications and were appointed on the post of District Legal Aid Officers in the scale of pay of Rs. 425-1050/-, which was the pay-scale in respect of posts of Deputy Collector, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Civil Judges. However, no action was taken to grant the revised pay-scale to District Legal Aid Officers. A writ petition was filed before the Gwalior Bench of this Court namely W.P. No. 1549/93, in which vide order dated 12-10-1995, it was inter alia held that in the absence of any statutory provision, entitling the District Legal Aid Officers to claim pay in the scale of pay of Rs. 2200-4000, no mandamus can be issued. However, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the State Govt. to take a decision in accordance with law in respect of the grievance of the petitioners within a period of three months. The State Government forwarded the matter pertaining to revision of pay scale to District Legal Aid Officers to the Madhya Pradesh Legal Aid Board (here in after referred to as 'the Board'). The Board in its meeting held on 13-11-1993 took a decision to grant the revised pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- w.e.f. 1-1-1986. The resolution was sent for approval to the State Government. The State Govt. granted approval to the resolution passed by the Board. Thereupon an order dated 30-1-1996 was issued granting pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- w.e.f. 1st January, 1996 to the District Legal Aid Officers. ( 3. ) THE Parliament thereafter enacted an Act namely the "Legal Services Authority Act, 1987" (here in after referred to as 'the Act, 1987'). In exercise of power under Section 28 of the Act, the State Government has framed the Rules which are known as Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') which came into force w.e.f. 24-6-1996. In exercise of power under Section 28 of the Act, the State Government has framed the Rules which are known as Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') which came into force w.e.f. 24-6-1996. Rule 11 (1) of the Rules provides that officers and other employees of the State Authority shall be entitled to draw pay and allowances in the scale of pay indicated against each post in the Schedule or at par with officers and employees of the State Government holding equivalent post. Rule 22 of the Rules provides that the officers and employees working in the Board constituted under the 1976 Act at the commencement of the Rules shall be treated as officers and servants of State Legal Services Authority constituted under the 1987 Act. However, by way of a Notification dated 30-6-1998, schedule appended to the Rules, was amended and the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- was prescribed for the post of Legal Aid Officer. It is the case of the petitioners that since prior to commencement of the Rules, 1996, pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- was sanctioned to the Legal Aid Officers, they were entitled to be paid salary in the scale of pay of Rs. 8000-13,500/- which is the corresponding revised pay-scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. However, an audit was conducted by the auditors in which inter alia it was opined that in fact that District legal Aid Officers are entitled to pay, in the scale of Rs. 6500-10,500/-, which is the corresponding revised pay scale of Rs. 2000-3,500/-. However, they are being paid the salary in the scale of pay of Rs. 8000-13,500/-, which is corresponding revised pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. Without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, in view of audit objection, an order dated 15-1-2003 was passed by respondent No. 2 Authority by which pay of the petitioners was fixed in the scale of pay of Rs. 6500-10,500/-. It was further directed that the excess payment made to the petitioners would be recovered from them. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking the reliefs referred to supra. ( 4. ) THE respondent No. 1/State Government initially filed the return in which the return filed by respondent No. 2/Authority was adopted. 6500-10,500/-. It was further directed that the excess payment made to the petitioners would be recovered from them. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking the reliefs referred to supra. ( 4. ) THE respondent No. 1/State Government initially filed the return in which the return filed by respondent No. 2/Authority was adopted. However, an additional return has been filed in which inter alia an objection has been taken that challenge to the amendment made in the schedule is belated. It has been averred that State Govt. in the year 1990 has taken a policy decision to grant revised pay-scale of Rs. 8000-13,500/- which is the corresponding pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- to those Class II Officers who were recruited through PSC and to grant the revised pay scale of Rs. 6500-10,500/-, the corresponding pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- to those Class II Officers who were not recruited through PSC. THE Legal Aid Officers were not recruited through PSC. However, they were erroneously granted the pay in the scale of Rs. 8000-13,500/-. THE aforesaid decision has been rectified and now they have been placed in the scale of pay of Rs. 6500-10,500/- by order dated 15-1-2003 passed by respondent No. 2/Authority which is in accordance with the Rules and as per the decision of the State Government. It has further been averred that petitioners cannot compare themselves at par with Class II employees, who were recruited through PSC like Deputy Collector, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Civil Judges etc. It has also been stated that contention of the petitioners that amendment in the Schedule is ultra vires or unconstitutional is misconceived. The respondent No. 2/Legal Services Authority has filed the return in which inter alia it is pleaded that under 1976 Act, no Regulations relating to salary and other conditions of service were framed for recruitment of officers and other employees of the Board. The benefit of revision of pay rules as applicable to Government servants was extended to the officers and employees of the Board from time to time. The pay scale of Legal Aid Officer prior to revision of Pay Rules, 1990 was Rs. 1820-3330/-. Under the revision of Pay Rules, 1990, Class II posts were bifurcated for the purposes of pay scales in two categories. The pay scale of Legal Aid Officer prior to revision of Pay Rules, 1990 was Rs. 1820-3330/-. Under the revision of Pay Rules, 1990, Class II posts were bifurcated for the purposes of pay scales in two categories. In first category, those officers were placed who were appointed through Public Service Commission and a higher pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- was prescribed for them. In second category, those officers were placed who were directly appointed through Public Service Commission and for them, pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- was fixed. The Legal Aid Officers were placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- by the Board. The issue with regard to revision of pay scale of Legal Aid Officers was placed before the Executive Committee of the Board which decided to grant the pay-scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- to the District Legal Aid Officers. The decision of the Board was sent for approval to the State Govt. The State Govt. granted conditional approval on the ground that Board shall not claim any extra grant for meeting the extra expenditure. In M.P. State Legal Services Authority Rules, which came into force w.e.f. 24-6-1996, pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- has been prescribed for the post of District Legal Aid Officer, which became the corresponding new pay scale of Rs. 6500-10,500/- under the M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1998. However, on account of erroneous fixation of pay, the District Legal Aid Officers were drawing salary in the higher scale of pay of Rs. 2200-4000/- which was revised to Rs. 8000-13,500/- under the 1998 Rules. In the light of audit objection, an order dated 15-1-2003 has rightly been passed by which scale of pay of District Legal Aid Officers has been fixed as Rs. 6500-10,500/-. ( 5. ) MRS. Shobha Menon, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that under the 1976 Act, the Board was the Competent Authority to determine the service conditions of the District Legal Aid Officers. The Board by a resolution dated 13-11-1995 fixed the pay of District Legal Officers in the scale of pay of Rs. 2200-4000/- w.e.f. 1-1-1986. The Rules have into force w.e.f. 24-6-1996 and an amendment in the Schedule appended to the Rules has been made on 30-6-1998 by which pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- has been fixed. The Board by a resolution dated 13-11-1995 fixed the pay of District Legal Officers in the scale of pay of Rs. 2200-4000/- w.e.f. 1-1-1986. The Rules have into force w.e.f. 24-6-1996 and an amendment in the Schedule appended to the Rules has been made on 30-6-1998 by which pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- has been fixed. It was submitted by learned Senior Counsel that prior to even commencement of the Rules, by a resolution dated 13-11-1995, the Board which was the Competent Authority had fixed the scale of pay of the District Legal Aid Officers as Rs. 2200-4000/-. Thus, the vested right which had accrued to the petitioners cannot be taken away by the amendment in the Schedule to the 1996 Rules which was made on 30-6-1998. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that a vested right cannot be taken away with retrospective effect. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned Counsel has placed reliance on Chairman, Railway Board and others Vs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah and others, (1997) 6 SCC 623 , State of U.P. and another Vs. Jogendra Singh and another, AIR 1998 SC 658 , P. Tulsi Das and others Vs. Government of A. P. and others, AIR 2003 SC 43 , S.L. Srinivasa Jute Twine Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and another, (2006) 2 SCC 740 , U. Raghavendra Acharya and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 2006 SC 2145 . It was further submitted that reduction of pay is impermissible in law. For this proposition, reliance has been placed on Divisional Superintendent, Eastern Railway, Dinapur and others Vs. L.N. Kashri and others, AIR 1974 SC 1889 as well as Division Bench decision of Delhi High Court in the case of H.S. Dhiman Vs. New Delhi Municipal Corporation, 2007 INDLAW DEL 1169. It was further submitted that order dated 15-1-2003 is bad in law as the petitioners were neither apprised about the audit objection nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to them before passing the order dated 15-1-2003. It was further submitted that petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6 have superannuated from service, whereas petitioner Nos. 2 and 5 are still in service. In any case, recovery of the amount from the petitioners cannot be made. In support of this proposition, learned Senior Counsel has referred to decisions of Supreme Court in Shyam Babu Verma and others Vs. 1, 3, 4 and 6 have superannuated from service, whereas petitioner Nos. 2 and 5 are still in service. In any case, recovery of the amount from the petitioners cannot be made. In support of this proposition, learned Senior Counsel has referred to decisions of Supreme Court in Shyam Babu Verma and others Vs. Union of India and others, (1994) 2 SCC 521 , 2006(1) M.P.H.T. 105 and 2008 (2) M.P.H.T. 279. ( 6. ) SHRI K.K. Trivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that by way of impugned amendment dated 30-6-1998 in the Schedule of 1996 Rules, the service conditions of District Legal Aid Officers have been altered to their disadvantage. It was further submitted that District Legal Aid Officers in view of Rule 11 (1) of 1996 Rules are entitled to salary in the scale of pay at par with officers and employees of the State Govt. holding equivalent posts. It was further submitted that the instant case is a case of absorption of service of District Legal Aid Officers in the services of M.P. State Legal Services Authority and, therefore, no amendment in the Rules can be legally made which is detrimental to the service conditions of the District Legal Aid Officers. On the other hand, Mr. Naman Nagrath, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 submitted that a note sheet was placed before the Honourable Chief Justice wherein Schedule relating to Legal Aid Officers as provided in the Rules was tampered and the scale of pay which is applicable to Legal Aid Officers was shown other then that provided in the Schedule. The conduct of the petitioners disentitles them to any relief. It was further submitted that State Government had granted a conditional approval and it was clarified that no additional grant shall be claimed from the State Govt. and the Board shall have to bear the extra financial burden. Mr. Sujoy Paul, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that Legal Aid Officers were entitled to pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/-. However, erroneously, their pay sale was fixed as Rs. 2200-4000/-. It was further submitted that based on sources of recruitment, different pay scales can be provided. In this connection, learned Counsel has placed reliance on decision of Supreme Court in the case of Govt. of W.B. Vs. Tarun K. Roy and others, (2004) 1 SCC 347 . 2000-3500/-. However, erroneously, their pay sale was fixed as Rs. 2200-4000/-. It was further submitted that based on sources of recruitment, different pay scales can be provided. In this connection, learned Counsel has placed reliance on decision of Supreme Court in the case of Govt. of W.B. Vs. Tarun K. Roy and others, (2004) 1 SCC 347 . It was further submitted that under Rule 11 of 1996 Rules, the Legal Aid Officers are entitled to scale of pay at par with officers and employees of the Government holding equivalent posts. It was further submitted that the petitioners have neither challenged the validity of M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 nor M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1998. Since, erroneously the petitioners were paid excess sum in the higher scale of pay, therefore, the same has rightly been directed to be recovered from the petitioners. ( 7. ) WE have considered the submissions made on both sides. Admittedly, the members of the petitioner No. 1-Association in W.P. No. 5858/06 (S) as well as other petitioners were appointed under the 1976 Act. It is also not in dispute that under Section 16 of the 1976 Act, the Madhya Pradesh Legal Aid Board is the Appointing Authority in respect of officers and servants of the Board. Section 17 of the 1976 Act empowered the Board to frame Regulations to determine the remuneration and other conditions of service of the officers and servants. However, the Regulations were not framed. The Board in its meeting held on 13-11-1993 took a decision to grant the revised pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- w.e.f. 1-1-1996. The resolution was sent for approval to the State Government. The State Govt. granted approval to the resolution passed by the Board. Thereupon an order dated 30-1-1996 was issued granting pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- w.e.f. 1st January, 1996 to the District Legal Aid Officers. Thus, a vested right accrued in favour of District Legal Aid Officers. Thereafter, the State Govt. under the 1987 Act framed the Rules namely Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1996, which came into force on 24-6-1996. The Schedule to the aforesaid Rules was amendment by Notification dated 30-6-1998 and pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- was prescribed in respect of the post of District Legal Aid Officer. ( 8. Thereafter, the State Govt. under the 1987 Act framed the Rules namely Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1996, which came into force on 24-6-1996. The Schedule to the aforesaid Rules was amendment by Notification dated 30-6-1998 and pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- was prescribed in respect of the post of District Legal Aid Officer. ( 8. ) SECTION 28 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 empowers the State Government to make Rules by way of a Notification. SECTION 28 reads as under:- "28. Power of the State Government to make Rules.- A State Government may, by Notification, make rules to provide for any matter, not being a matter specified in SECTION 27, in respect of which rules are required to be made by the State Government under this Act." From perusal of SECTION 28 of the 1987 Act, it is clear that it does not empower the State Government to frame Rules with retrospective effect. It is well settled in law that when an Act does not confer any power on the delegate to make Rules or Regulations with retrospective effect, the Rules and Regulations cannot have any retrospective operation to take away the vested right. See : S.L. Srinivasa Jute Twine Mills (P) Ltd. (supra), Mahabir Vegetable Oil (P) Ltd. and another Vs. State of Haryana and others, (2006) 3 SCC 620 and Vice Chancellor, M.D. University, Rohtak Vs. Jahan Singh, (2007) 5 SCC 77 . Thus, for this reason, the amendment in the Schedule to the 1996 Rules cannot have any retrospective operation. Apart from this, it is equally a well settled legal proposition that a Rule which seeks to reverse from an anterior date a benefit which has been granted or availed of, i.e., promotion or pay scale is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to the extent it operates retrospectively. In the instant case, the Appointing Authority of the Board had fixed the scale of pay of the District Legal Aid Officers on 13-11-1993 in the scale of pay of Rs. 2200-4000/-. The aforesaid pay scale was sanctioned by the State Govt. and District Legal Aid Officers were paid the salary in the scale of pay of Rs. 2200-4000/-. Thus, their vested right by way of an amendment which came into force on 30-6-1998 could not have been taken away with retrospective effect. See : The Strawboard Manufacturing Co. 2200-4000/-. The aforesaid pay scale was sanctioned by the State Govt. and District Legal Aid Officers were paid the salary in the scale of pay of Rs. 2200-4000/-. Thus, their vested right by way of an amendment which came into force on 30-6-1998 could not have been taken away with retrospective effect. See : The Strawboard Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Gutta Mill Workers' Union, AIR 1953 SC 95 , Chairman, Railway Board and others Vs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah and others, (1997) 6 SCC 623 , Union of India and others Vs. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty and others, (1994) 5 SCC 450 , P. Tulsi Das and others Vs. Government of A. P. and others, AIR 2003 SC 43 , U. Raghavendra Acharya and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, (2006) 2 SCC 740 . If the amendment made in Schedule to 1996 Rules in so far as it pertains to pay scale of District Legal Aid Officer is given retrospective operation, the same would be violative of the Constitutional Guarantee contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it has to be read down to save it from the vice of unconstitutionality as having prospective operation only. So far as the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that in view of Rule 11 of the Rules, the District Legal Aid Officers were entitled to pay and allowances in the scale of pay indicated against each post in the Schedule or at par with officers and employees of the State Government holding equivalent post is concerned, the same also is of no assistance to the respondents. As stated supra, the aforesaid Rules have come into force on 24-6-1996. Prior to commencement of the Rules, the Board in its meeting held on 13-11-1993 took a decision to grant the revised pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- w.e.f. 1-1-1996. The State Government granted approval to the aforesaid resolution passed by the Board. Thereupon, an order dated 30-1-1996 was issued granting pay-scale of Rs. 2200- 4000/- w.e.f. 1-1-1996 to District Legal Aid Officers. It is not in dispute before us that corresponding pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- is Rs. 8000-13,500/-. Therefore, the District Legal Aid Officers are entitled to revised pay scale of Rs. 2200- 4000/- on the date of the commencement of the Rules, i.e., 24-6-1996. Apart from this, in our considered opinion, denial of benefit of revised pay scale of Rs. It is not in dispute before us that corresponding pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- is Rs. 8000-13,500/-. Therefore, the District Legal Aid Officers are entitled to revised pay scale of Rs. 2200- 4000/- on the date of the commencement of the Rules, i.e., 24-6-1996. Apart from this, in our considered opinion, denial of benefit of revised pay scale of Rs. 2200- 4000/- which even otherwise was fixed by the Competent Authority, i.e., the Board, on the ground that District Legal Aid Officers are not directly recruited by Public Service Commission, would amount to taking away their vested right on the basis of an extraneous consideration, as there is no provision at the time of their recruitment in the Act of 1976 and either under the 1987 Act or under the 1996 Rules for recruitment of District Legal Aid Officers through Public Service Commission and, therefore, on the basis of an artificial criteria which even otherwise is non-existent so far as District Legal Aid Officers are concerned, they cannot be deprived of their vested right, to grant of pay scale scale of Rs. 2200- 4000/-, as the same is impermissible in the eye of law. ( 9. ) THUS, in view of preceding analysis, the irresistible conclusion that amendment dated 30-6-1998 made in the 1996 Rules does not have any retrospective operation and cannot take away the vested right of District Legal Aid Officers for grant of pay scale of Rs. 8000-13,500/-, which is admittedly the revised pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. ( 10. ) THE pay scale of District Legal Aid Officers at the time when 1987 Act came into force was Rs. 2200-4000/- which was duly fixed by the Competent Authority, i.e., the Board. THE District Legal Aid Officers thus were entitled to pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- which could not be reduced. 2200-4000/-. ( 10. ) THE pay scale of District Legal Aid Officers at the time when 1987 Act came into force was Rs. 2200-4000/- which was duly fixed by the Competent Authority, i.e., the Board. THE District Legal Aid Officers thus were entitled to pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- which could not be reduced. There is no substantive provision in the 1987 Act to alter the service conditions of the employees to their disadvantage, especially in view of the fact that the instant case is a case of absorption of services of District Legal Aid Officers in State Legal Services Authority constituted under the 1987 Act, as is perceptible from perusal of Rule 22 of the Rules framed under 1987 Act which provides that officers and employees of the Board working at the commencement of the Rules shall be treated as officers and servants of State Legal Services Authority under 1987 Act. In absence of any substantive provision in 1987 Act, the service conditions of the District Legal Aid Officers could not be altered to their disadvantage, and their vested right could not be taken away. For yet another reason, order dated 15-1-2003 (Annexure P-18) cannot be sustained. It is now well established principle of law that there can be no deprivation or curtailment of any existing right, advantage or benefit enjoyed by an employee without complying with the rules of natural justice. Any arbitrary exercise of power prejudicially affecting the service conditions of an employee would offend provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. See : H.L. Trehan Vs. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 568 . The aforesaid order dated 15-1-2003 is based on misinterpretation of the amendment made in the Schedule to the Rules and has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. For the aforementioned reasons, the order dated 15-1-2003 is hereby quashed and the District Legal Aid Officers are held entitled to pay in the scale of Rs. 8000-13,500/- ( 11. ) IN the result, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.