JUDGMENT Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, for clarity sake, facts of CWP No. 4823/2009 have been taken into consideration. Respondent-State has not filed reply in this petition. However, the reply filed by the respondent- State in CWP No. 4854/2009 has been taken into consideration. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (College Cadre) in the subject of Physics on 17.7.1985. On the recommendations of the University Grants Commission (UGC) and on the basis of Punjab pattern, the scales of pay of the teaching personnel of the University and Colleges were revised by the respondent-State with effect from 1.1.1986 vide notification dated 26.2.1988/16.11.1989. According to the notification, the pre-revised pay scale of Lecturers was revised from Rs. 700-1600 to Rs. 2200-4000, Lecturer/ Assistant Director (senior scale) was revised to ! 3000-5000 and pay scale of Lecturer/Assistant Director (selection grade) was revised from ! 1200-1840 to ! 3700-5700. These pay scales have been revised with effect from 1.1.1986. The UGC has issued consolidated statement on the basis of letters dated 27.7.1998, 22.9.1998 and 6.11.1998. Accordingly, the pay scale of Lecturers was revised from Rs. 2200-4000 to Rs. 8000-13500, Lecturers (Senior Scale) from Rs. 3000-5000 to Rs. 10000-15200 and Lecturer (Selection Grade) from Rs. 3700-5700 to ! 12000-18300 with effect from 1.1.1986. According to Appendix of Annexure P-2, the fixation of pay of Lecturers (Selection Grade) with a pre-revised scale of Rs. 3700-5700, who were selected strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations framed by the UGC and who were in position as Lecturers (Selection Grade) as on 1.1.1996, was to be made in the manner that they get their pay fixed at the minimum of Rs. 14940/- in the revised scale of Rs. 12000-18300 as and when they were to complete five years in the grade. The same was reiterated vide Annexure-III of Annexure P-2 dated 6.11.1998. The Education Department of respondent-State issued notification dated 7.5.1999 in sequel to the recommendations of the UGC and on the basis of Punjab pattern revising the pay scale, inter alia, of the college Lecturers with effect from 1.1.1996. The pay scale of Lecturers was revised from Rs. 2200-4000 to Rs. 8000-13500, Lecturers (Senior Scale) from ! 3000-5000 to ! The Education Department of respondent-State issued notification dated 7.5.1999 in sequel to the recommendations of the UGC and on the basis of Punjab pattern revising the pay scale, inter alia, of the college Lecturers with effect from 1.1.1996. The pay scale of Lecturers was revised from Rs. 2200-4000 to Rs. 8000-13500, Lecturers (Senior Scale) from ! 3000-5000 to ! 10000-15200 and Lecturers (Senior Grade) from Rs. 3700-5700 to Rs. 12000-18300. Another notification was issued on 7.5.1999 whereby as per para (b) at page 35 of the paper book, following the notification of Ministry of Human Resources Development, it was provided that the fixation of pay of Lecturers (Selection Grade) in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 3700-5700 who were in position as Lecturers (Selection Grade) as on 1.1.1996 would be made in the manner that they get their pay fixed at the minimum of Rs. 14940/- in the revised scale of Rs. 12000- 18300 on completion of five years in the grade. The Directorate of Education, Himachal Pradesh vide memo dated 21.7.2003 invited the attention of all the Principals, Government Colleges in Himachal Pradesh, Principal, SCERT, Solan and Principal, Government College of Teacher Education, Dharamshala to notification dated 7.5.1999 with respect to admissibility of fixation at minimum of Rs. 14940/- in the selection grade of Rs. 12000-18300 in case of those Lecturers who had completed five years in the selection grade. It was clarified that such cases of Lecturers were not required to be referred to the Directorate of Education and such fixation could be made at the level of Principal. Petitioner was put in senior scale of Rs. 3000-5000 with effect from 17.7.1992 and selection grade of ! 12000- 18300 with effect from 27.7.1998. He was granted the benefit of fixation of pay at minimum of Rs. 14940/- when he completed five years in the selection grade, i.e. 27.7.2003. Vide memorandum dated 18.8.2009 Annexure P-6, the Directorate of Higher Education wrote to all the Principals of Government Degree College/Government Sanskrit College etc. that as per UGC guidelines, the basic pay of Rs. 14940/- was to be allowed only to those Lecturers who were in Selection Grade of ! 3700-5700 before 1.1.1996 and if they had completed five years service in a grade as on 1.1.1996 and those who had not completed five years service in the grade on 1.1.1996, they were to be allowed basic pay of Rs. 14940/- was to be allowed only to those Lecturers who were in Selection Grade of ! 3700-5700 before 1.1.1996 and if they had completed five years service in a grade as on 1.1.1996 and those who had not completed five years service in the grade on 1.1.1996, they were to be allowed basic pay of Rs. 14940/- as and when they complete five years in the grade. This basic pay was not admissible to those Lecturers who were granted selection grade on or after 1.1.1996. In view of this, letter dated 21.7.2003 from the Directorate was deemed to be withdrawn with immediate effect, i.e. Annexure P-5. In sequel to Annexure P-6, the Principals of Government Colleges have ordered the re-fixation of salary of the Lecturers. The copy of one of the office order dated 4.10.2010 in this respect is Annexure P-7. 3. Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Senior Advocate has strenuously argued that cut-off date, i.e. 1.1.1996 prescribed in para 1 (v) (b) of Appendix-I to Annexure P­2 and para 1 (ii) of Annexure-III to Annexure P-2 dated 6.11.1998 and para iv (b) of Annexure P-4 dated 7.5.1999 is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He then contended that all the Lecturers, who have been granted Selection Grade, constitute homogenous class and there cannot be any classification on the basis of artificial cut-off date, i.e. 1.1.1996 for the purpose of fixation of pay at minimum of ! 14940/- on completion of five years in a selection grade. He then contended that there is no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. According to him, incentive has been given to the Lecturers (Selection Grade), who otherwise were without adequate avenues of further promotion by fixing their pay at minimum of Rs. 14940/- on completion of five years service in a selection grade. He also contended that the petitioner and similarly situate persons on completion of five years service in a selection grade are entitled to be fixed at minimum of Rs. 14940/-. He further contended that the Lecturers, who had completed five years as on 1.1.1996 would be given the benefit, but the Lecturers who have not completed five years on 2.1.1996 would not be fixed at the minimum of ! 14940/-. 14940/-. He further contended that the Lecturers, who had completed five years as on 1.1.1996 would be given the benefit, but the Lecturers who have not completed five years on 2.1.1996 would not be fixed at the minimum of ! 14940/-. He further contended that the Ministry of Human Resources Development/UGC has opted for three placements, i.e. regular pay scale, senior scale and selection grade and the third placement cannot be confined to one category only without there being any reasonableness and rationality. He further contended that the petitioner has neither misled nor misrepresented the facts at the time when he was fixed at the minimum of ! 14940/- after completion of five years of service in selection grade on 27.7.2003. He finally contended that pay of the petitioner is being re-fixed without hearing him. 4. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has supported the cut-off date, i.e. 1.1.1996. According to him, only those Lecturers, who were getting selection grade upto 1.1.1996 were entitled to fixation at the minimum of Rs. 14940 and the Lecturers, who have been given selection grade after this cut-off date are not entitled to be fixed at the minimum of Rs. 14940/-. 5. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General has adopted the argument of Mr. Sandeep Sharma and has argued that Annexure P-6 has been issued strictly by construing the guidelines issued by the UGC. He then argued that the petitioner and similarly situate persons are not entitled to pay fixation at the minimum of ! 14940/-. According to him, no notice was required to be issued to them before re-fixation of their pays. He has also argued that letter dated 21.7.2003 was inadvertently issued and the same has also been withdrawn. He has further submitted that an undertaking is obtained from the petitioner and similarly situated persons at the time of fixation/release of monetary benefits that in case over payment is made due to wrong fixation of pay, the Government servant is liable to refund the amount of over payment. 6.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 7. It is evident from the pleadings that prior to 1.1.1986, Lecturers were getting only one placement, i.e. regular pay scale of Rs. 700-1600 and then they could be placed in the selection grade of ! 1200-1840. 6.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 7. It is evident from the pleadings that prior to 1.1.1986, Lecturers were getting only one placement, i.e. regular pay scale of Rs. 700-1600 and then they could be placed in the selection grade of ! 1200-1840. However, as per notification dated 26.2.1988/ 16.11.1989, Lecturers got two placements with effect from 1.1.1986 in the senior scale of Rs. 3000-5000 and selection grade of ! 3700-5700. According to notification issued on 26.2.1988/16.11.1989, the pay scale of Lecturers was revised from Rs. 700-1600 to Rs. 2200-4000 with effect from 1.1.1986. They were also entitled to senior scale of ! 3000-5000 and revised selection grade from Rs. 1200-1840 to Rs. 3700-5000. However, as per notification issued by the UGC and Ministry of Human Resources Development, the pay scale of Lecturers was revised from Rs. 2200-4000 to Rs. 8000-13500, lecturers (Senior Scale) from Rs. 3000-5000 to Rs. 10000-15200 and Lecturers (Selection Grade) from Rs. 3700-5700 to Rs. 12000-18300. According to para 1 (v) (b) Appendix of Annexure P-2, the following decision was taken with regard to fixation of minimum of Rs. 14940/- in case of Lecturers (Selection Grade) after completion of five years in service: “(b) The fixation of pay of Lecturers (Selection Grade)/Readers in the pre-revised scale of ! 3700-125-4950- 150-5700/- who were selected strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations framed by the UGC and who were in position as Lecturers (Selection Grade)/Readers as on 1.1.1996, will be made in a manner that they get their pay fixed at the minimum of ! 14940/- in the revised scale of Rs. 12000-420-18300 as and when they complete five years in the grade (Annexure III).” 8. The same has been reiterated at Annexure­III at page 30 of the paper book. The State Government has adopted the pay scales with effect from 1.1.1996 as per letter dated 7.5.1999. However, it has also retained clause 1 (v) (b) of Appendix-1 of Annexure P-2 at page 35 of the paper book. It is evident from the plain reading of clause 1 (v) (b) that the fixation of the Lecturers (Selection Grade), who were in position as Lecturers (Selection Grade) as on 1.1.1996, was to be made in the manner that they get their pay fixed at the minimum of Rs. 14940/- in the revised scale of Rs. It is evident from the plain reading of clause 1 (v) (b) that the fixation of the Lecturers (Selection Grade), who were in position as Lecturers (Selection Grade) as on 1.1.1996, was to be made in the manner that they get their pay fixed at the minimum of Rs. 14940/- in the revised scale of Rs. 12000- 18300 after completion of five years. 9. According to Mr. Dilip Sharma, the cut-off date, i.e. 1.1.1996 divides homogenous class of Lecturers (Selection Grade). He also contended that the cut-off date has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. According to him, the object sought to be achieved was to reduce stagnation by fixation of pay at the minimum of Rs. 14940/-. 10. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of respondents have not placed any tangible material on record to show that why the fixation of pay at the minimum of Rs. 14940/- has been confined only to those Lecturers (Selection Grade), who were in position as on 1.1.1996. It is for the employer to fix the date, however, the same should have some rationale with the object sought to be achieved. In the instant case, all the Lecturers, who are given selection grade and had completed five years in the grade should have been given the benefit of pay fixation at the minimum of Rs. 14940/- in the revised scale of Rs. 12000-18300 irrespective whether they have completed five years on or before 1.1.1996. All the Lecturers, who have been granted senior scale, and have also been granted selection grade and have completed five years, constitute homogeneous class and they cannot be further divided on the basis of artificial date, i.e. 1.1.1996 by fixing the pay at the minimum of Rs. 14940/- in the revised pay scale of Rs. 12000-18300 only for those Lecturers who have completed five years as on 1.1.1996. The objective to grant the selection grade and to fix the pay at the minimum of ! 14940/-, after five years of service, is to remove stagnation and give incentive to improve their conditions of service. The cut-off date prescribed is artificial and unreasonable. 11. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.R. Nim versus Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1301 have held that the Central Government cannot pick out a date from a hat. 14940/-, after five years of service, is to remove stagnation and give incentive to improve their conditions of service. The cut-off date prescribed is artificial and unreasonable. 11. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.R. Nim versus Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1301 have held that the Central Government cannot pick out a date from a hat. Their Lordships have declared the cut-off date, i.e. 19.5.1951 invalid since the date was artificial and arbitrary and the same has nothing to do with the application of rule 3 (3). Their Lordships have held as under: “6. It would be noticed that the date May 19, 1951, to begin with, had nothing to do with the finalization of the Gradation List of the Indian Police Services because it was a date which had reference to the finalization of the Gradation List for the I.A.S. Further this date does not seem to have much relevance to the question of avoiding the anomalous position mentioned in Para. 9 of the affidavit, reproduced above. This date was apparently chosen for the I.A.S. because on this date the Gradation List for all the earlier persons recruited to the Service had been finalised and issued in a somewhat stable stage. But why should this date be applied to the Indian Police Service has not been adequately explained. Mr. B. R. L. Iyengar, the learned counsel for the appellant, strongly urges that selection of May 19, 1951, as a crucial date for classifying people is arbitrary and irrational. We agree with him in this respect. It further appears from the affidavit of Mr. Mr. B. R. L. Iyengar, the learned counsel for the appellant, strongly urges that selection of May 19, 1951, as a crucial date for classifying people is arbitrary and irrational. We agree with him in this respect. It further appears from the affidavit of Mr. D. K. Guha, Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, dated December 9, 1966, that “the Government of India have recently decided in consultation with the Ministry of Law that the Ministry of Home Affairs letter No. 2/32/51-AIS, dated the 25th August 1955, will not be applicable to those SCS/SPS officers, who were appointed to IAS/IPS prior to the promulgation of IAS/IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954, and the date of the issue of the above letter in their earlier continuous officiation was approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs and Union Public Service Commission.” It further appears that “in the case of Shri C. S. Prasad also, an IPS officer of Bihar, a decision has been taken to give the benefit of full continuous officiation in senior posts and to revise his year of allotment accordingly.” But, it is stated that as Shri Nim was appointed to IPS on the 22nd October 1955, i.e., after the promulgation of IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954, and after the issue of letter, dated 25th August 1955, his case does not fall even under this category.” The above statement of the case of the Government further shows that the date, May 19, 1951, was an artificial and arbitrary date having nothing to do with the application of the first and the second proviso to R. 3 (3). It appears to us that under the second proviso to R. 3 (3) the period of officiation of a particular officer has to be considered and approved or disapproved by the Central Government in consultation with the Commission considering all the relevant facts. The Central Government cannot pick out a date from a that - and that is what it seems to have done in this case - and say that a period prior to that date would not be deemed to be approved by the Central Government within the second proviso.” 12.Mr. Dilip Sharma has also contended that the cut-off date, i.e. 1.1.1996 is liable to be quashed after applying the principle of severability. He has relied upon D.S. Nakara’s case. 13. Dilip Sharma has also contended that the cut-off date, i.e. 1.1.1996 is liable to be quashed after applying the principle of severability. He has relied upon D.S. Nakara’s case. 13. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara versus Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130 have held as under: “58. Now if the choice of date is arbitrary, eligibility criteria is unrelated to the object sought to be achieved and has the pernicious tendency of dividing an otherwise homogeneous class, the question is whether the liberalised pension scheme must wholly fail or that the pernicious part can be severed, cautioning itself that this Court does not legislate but merely interpretes keeping in view the underlying intention and the object, the impugned measure seeks to sub-serve? Even though it is not possible to oversimplify the issue, let us read the impugned memoranda deleting the unconstitutional part. Omitting, it the memoranda will read like this: “At present, pension is calculated at the rate of 1/80th of average emoluments for each completed year of service and is subject to a maximum of 33/80 of average emoluments and is further restricted to a monetary limit of Rs. 1,000/- per month. The President is, now, pleased to decide that with effect 31st March, 1979 the amount of pension shall be determined in accordance with the following slabs.” If from the impugned memoranda the event of being in service and retiring subsequent to specified date is severed, all pensioners would be governed by the liberalised pension scheme. The pension will have to be recomputed in accordance with the provisions of the liberalised pension scheme as salaries were required to be recomputed in accordance with the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission but becoming operative from the specified date. It does therefore appear that the reading down of impugned memoranda by severing the objectionable portion would not render the liberalised pension scheme vague unenforceable or unworkable.” 14. Mr. Rajinder Dogra has also argued that the University guidelines are only recommendatory and not mandatory. It does therefore appear that the reading down of impugned memoranda by severing the objectionable portion would not render the liberalised pension scheme vague unenforceable or unworkable.” 14. Mr. Rajinder Dogra has also argued that the University guidelines are only recommendatory and not mandatory. However, in the instant case, the State Government in pursuant to the recommendations of the UGC on the basis of Punjab pattern has issued notification dated 7.5.1999 followed by second notification of the same date vide Annexures P-3 and P­4 while revising the pay scales of teaching personnel and academic staff only of the Universities and Government Colleges in the State and Directorate of Colleges with effect from 1.1.1996. 15.Accordingly, the cut-off date, i.e. 1.1.1996 contained in para 1 (v) (b) of Appendix-I to Annexure P-2 dated 6.11.1998, para 1 (iii) if Annexure P-3 and para 4 (b) of Annexure P-4 dated 7.5.1999 are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and are liable to be quashed and set aside. 16. Now, the Court will advert to the manner in which the State Government has proceeded with the matter. The Directorate of Education vide letter dated 21.7.2003 has informed all the Principals that the pay of Lecturers in selection scale of Rs 12000- 18300 is to be fixed at minimum of Rs 14940/- in case of those who had completed five years in the selection grade. Petitioners’ pay was fixed at Rs 14940/- on 27.7.2003 after completion of five years of selection grade with effect from 27.7.1998. However, the same has been withdrawn vide Annexure P-6 dated 18.8.2009 by referring to UGC guidelines. Thereafter, the pay of the petitioner and similarly situate persons has been ordered to be re-fixed by withdrawing the benefit of fixation at the minimum of Rs 14940/-. The petitioner has neither misled nor misrepresented the authorities at the time when his pay was fixed at the minimum of Rs 14940/-, after completion of five years in the selection grade. The State Government at its own level has granted the benefits to the petitioner and similarly situate persons. In case this benefit was to be withdrawn, the petitioner ought to have been afforded with reasonable opportunity of being heard. The State Government at its own level has granted the benefits to the petitioner and similarly situate persons. In case this benefit was to be withdrawn, the petitioner ought to have been afforded with reasonable opportunity of being heard. The petitioner and similarly situate person has suffered civil and evil consequences since their pays have been re­fixed and the same is to be reduced as per office order Annexure P-7 dated 4.10.2009. 17.Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held in Rajesh Kumar and others versus Dy. CIT and others, 2007 (2) SCC 181 that when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. Their Lordships have held as under: “26. Effect of civil consequences arising out of determination of lis under a statute is stated in State of Orissa v.Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors. ( 1967 (2) SCR 625 ). It is an authority for the proposition when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. In such an event, although no express provision is laid down in this behalf compliance of principles of natural justice would be implicit. In case of denial of principles of natural justice in a statute, the same may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.” 18. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and others versus State of Bihar and others, (2009) 3 SCC 475 have culled out the following principles governing the circumstances in which the excess amount cannot be recovered by the employer: “55. That apart, it also appears from the record produced before us that while the Finance Department of the Government of Bihar was in favour of making the amended provisions of FR. That apart, it also appears from the record produced before us that while the Finance Department of the Government of Bihar was in favour of making the amended provisions of FR. 22-C applicable to the appellants-teachers after having come to know that the said rule did not exist and had been substituted, the Department of Human Resource Development, Government of Bihar, wanted to apply the unamended provision to the appellants-teachers so as to make available the benefit of additional increment provided for under FR.22-C to its teachers, unaware of the fact that even under FR.22-C they were not entitled to the additional increment as they were not discharging duties and responsibilities of greater importance on the promoted post. 56. This further goes on to show that the authorities in the State of Bihar were not even aware of the basic requirement for grant of additional increment and the decision appears to have been taken without proper application of mind. Otherwise, there was no reason for the Finance Department to state in the counter affidavit filed before the High Court that any affidavit filed on behalf of the Education Department may be ignored as Finance Department was the competent authority. In this very affidavit, the Finance Department while admitting that the pay fixation by the Education Department was wrong, stated as under:- “...the fixation of pay under Fundamental Rule 22- C has wrongly been made as it was not in existence. Pay fixation on the basis of a nonexistent rule is a bona fide mistake.” 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. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 18, Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India, [1994] 2 SCC 521; Union of India vs. M. Bhaskar, [1996] 4 SCC 416; V. Ganga Ram vs. Regional Jt., Director, [1997] 6 SCC 139; Col. B.J. Akkara [Retd.] vs. Government of India & Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 709 ; Purshottam Lal Das & Ors.,vs. State of Bihar, [2006] 11 SCC 492; Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr., [2006] 8 SCC 647; and Bihar State Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Bijay Bahadur & Anr., [2000] 10 SCC 99. 59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellants - 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 appellants-teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. 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 appellants-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 appellants-teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellants-teachers should be made. 60. Learned counsel also submitted that prior to the interim order passed by this Court on 7.4.2003 in the special leave petitions, whereby the order of recovery passed by the Division Bench of the High Court was stayed, some installments/amount had already been recovered from some of the teachers. Since we have directed that no recovery of the excess amount be made from the appellant- teachers and in order to maintain parity, it would be in the fitness of things that the amount that has been recovered from the teachers should be refunded to them.” 19. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, all the petitions are allowed. The cut-off date, i.e. 1.1.1996 mentioned in para 1 (v) (b) of Appendix-I to Annexure P-2, para 1 (ii) of Annexure-III to Annexure P-2 dated 6.11.1998 and para 4 (b) of Annexure P-4 dated 7.5.1999 is struck down, after applying the principle of severability. Annexure P-6 dated 18.8.2009 is also quashed and set aside. Petitioners are entitled to get their pay fixed at the minimum of ! 14940/- after completion of five years as Lecturers (Selection Grade). Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.