Judgment: Heard, counsel for the parties. 2. Even this petition deserves to be dismissed for the same reasons as noted in the order passed in W.P. No.7256/2013 and companion cases, today. 3. The only additional point raised by this petitioner is that as recently as on 30/3/13 and 11/2/13, up-gradation of persons, who were appointed as Assistant Grade III to the post of Clerk-Cum-Stenographer, has been done under the signatures of District and Session Judge, Bhind, as well as, District and Session Judge, Satna, as is evident from Annexure RJ-7 and RJ-8. 4. The High Court, on the administrative side, may examine this aspect of the matter as it cannot permit two different approaches for the same set of persons and take that action to its logical end, expeditiously. 5. It is next contended that the petitioner was not responsible for the mistake committed by the Administration in upgrading him from the post of Assistant Grade III to Clerk-Cum-Stenographer. 6. In view of the exposition of the Apex Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others ( (2012)8 SCC 417 ), that can be no ground for setting aside the order passed by the Administration to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner on the erroneous assumption that he was appointed as Clerk-Cum-Stenographer. Indeed, the recovery can be only with regard to the higher pay scale and not with regard to the allowances payable for discharging work of Stenographer, which is permissible as per rules. 7. This petition is also dismissed.