Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 818 (JHR)

State of Jharkhand v. Veena Anjana Lakara

2015-07-20

D.N.PATEL, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2015
ORDER : 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (S) No. 2996 of 2009 dated 12th March, 2014 whereby, the petition preferred by the present respondent has been allowed by the learned Single Judge against which the original respondents have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent was appointed as a Teacher in erstwhile State of Bihar on 4th November, 1994 and she was getting the pay scale of Trained Teacher. Her initial pay scale was Rs. 1500-2750/- thereafter, it was enhanced upto Rs. 5500-9000/- with effect from 8th February, 1999. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellants that thereafter in her service book her pay scale was reduced to Rs. 4000-6000/-. Thereafter, a writ petition was preferred being WP (S) No. 280 of 2002 by the respondent. Initially, stay was granted by this Court and thereafter, the writ petition was allowed vide order dated 27th February, 2008 and the liberty was reserved with the State to pass afresh order and therefore, Government of Jharkhand passed an order dated 24th November, 2008 (Annexure-12 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal) whereby, the pay scale of the respondent (original petitioner) was reduced from Rs. 5500-9000/- to Rs. 4000-6000/-. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the original petitioner was never a Trained Teacher. She was appointed on 4th November, 1994 which was wrongly given by the erstwhile State of Bihar the pay scale of Trained Teacher. Even in the State of Bihar, a Circular was issued dated 4th April, 2002 (Annexure-3) to give the pay scale of Untrained Teacher, to those Teachers, who were appointed as Untrained Teachers. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside and therefore, the order of recovery can also not be quashed by the learned Single Judge as the respondent was wrongly given a pay scale of a Trained Teacher instead of pay scale of Untrained Teacher. 3. 3. Counsel for the respondent (original petitioner) submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition and quashing the order passed by the State of Jharkhand dated 24th November, 2008 (Annexure-12 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). The respondent was appointed as a Teacher on 4th November, 1994 initially, in the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2750/- which was increased upto Rs. 5500-9000/-. Respondent (original petitioner) was sent for training in the year 2005-06 and necessary training certificate was also given to the respondent of B.Ed in the year 2008. Thus, after 2008, the petitioner was entitled to grade of Trained Teacher. Now the only question is left out is after 1994 and prior to 2008. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that there is no fraud played by the respondent nor there is any misappropriation by the respondent (original petitioner). The pay scale fixed by the Government was received by the respondent. If at all there is any error on the part of the State then the respondent was not liable at all. 4. Counsel for the respondent has cited the following decisions:- (a) Shyam Babu Verma and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (1994) 2 SCC 521 (b) Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana and Others, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 (c) Bihar State Electricity Board and Others vs. Bijay Bhadur and Others, (2000) 10 SCC 99 (d) Purshottam Lal Das and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2006) 11 SCC 492 (e) Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) vs. Government of India and Others, (2006) 11 SCC 709 (f) Laxman Prasad Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2008 (3) JCR 655 (FB) (g) State of Bihar and Others vs. Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad, (2009) 3 SCC 117 (h) Syed Abdul Qadir and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2009) 3 SCC 475 (i) Paras Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2009) 6 SCC 314 On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that no recovery can be made by the appellant-State for the period running from 1994 to 2008 and after 2008, there is no question of reduction of pay scale whatsoever arises because the respondent has already achieved training. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge by allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondent and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. 5. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons:- (i) The respondent was appointed as a Teacher by the erstwhile State of Bihar on 4th November, 1994 in the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2750/-. Thereafter, from time to time the pay scale was enhanced upto Rs. 5500-9000/- with effect from 8th February, 1999. (ii) It appears that in service book of the respondent (original petitioner) the pay scale was reduced from Rs. 5500-9000/- to Rs. 4000-6000/- and therefore, the respondent has instituted writ petition being WP (S) No. 280 of 2002 in which initially, stay was granted vide order dated 15th January, 2002 for reduction of the pay scale and ultimately, the writ petition was allowed vide order dated 27th February, 2008 (Annexure-8 to this Letters Patent Appeal) and the reduction in pay scale was quashed and set aside. Nonetheless, liberty was reserved with the State of Jharkhand to pass afresh order after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the respondent. (iii) Thereafter, the State of Jharkhand has passed an order dated 24th November, 2008 (Annexure12 to the Letters Patent Appeal) reducing the pay scale of the original petitioner from Rs. 5500-9000/- to Rs. 4000-6000/- mainly on the ground that when the respondent was appointed she was Untrained Teacher and therefore, she was entitled to the scale of Untrained Teacher and she was wrongly given the pay scale of a Trained Teacher. Nonetheless, counsel for the appellants submitted that it is true that she was sent for getting the training in the year 2005-06 and it was over in the year 2006-07 and B.Ed. certificate was given in April, 2008. Thus, from April, 2008 the respondent (original petitioner) is a Trained Teacher and even as per the Circular of the Government she is entitled to get a pay scale of a Trained Teacher. certificate was given in April, 2008. Thus, from April, 2008 the respondent (original petitioner) is a Trained Teacher and even as per the Circular of the Government she is entitled to get a pay scale of a Trained Teacher. (iv) Thus, it appears that the dispute is for the period running from 4.11.1994 to April, 2008 whether the respondent was entitled to get a pay scale of Untrained Teacher or a pay scale of a Trained Teacher. It appears that this dispute is unnecessary and uncalled for at this stage mainly for the reason that:- (a) The petitioner was appointed as Teacher on 4.11.1994 and she was given a pay scale by the Government may be of Trained or an Untrained Teacher scale, but, the fact remains that there was no misrepresentation, fraud, coercion etc. on the part of respondent (original petitioner), in getting that pay scale. (b) There is no allegation by the appellants upon the respondent that the respondent has played fraud or there is misappropriation or a cheating by the respondent for getting higher scale and hence, also no amount neither for pre April, 2008 period nor for post April, 2008 period can be recovered. (c) It is also undisputed fact that the original petitioner was getting a pay scale from November, 1994 to 2008 with all open eyes of the Government including erstwhile State of Bihar. The bills were prepared by the concerned officers and were approved by the high ranking officers and therefore, there is no question whatsoever arisen for recovery of the said amount. (v) It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (1994) 2 SCC 521 , especially at paragraph no. 11, 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. 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.” (Emphasis supplied) (vi) Moreover, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana and Others, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18, especially in paragraph 5, which reads as under:- “5. Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant.” (Emphasis supplied) (vii) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bihar State Electricity Board and Others vs. Bijay Bhadur and Others, (2000) 10 SCC 99 , especially in paragraph nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, which read as under:- “7. Admittedly, the writ petitioners have been allowed annual increments even without passing the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination which according to Mr. Pramod Swarup, learned advocate appearing for the appellant Board has become a condition precedent and part of their service conditions and question of there being any entitlement dehors the same does not and cannot arise. Mr. Swarup contended that Regulation 8 is rather categorical on this score as to the date of entitlement and since its deemed effect as a part of the condition of service, the appellant Board is within its authority and jurisdiction to deduct the amounts paid. Mr. Swarup contended that Regulation 8 is rather categorical on this score as to the date of entitlement and since its deemed effect as a part of the condition of service, the appellant Board is within its authority and jurisdiction to deduct the amounts paid. In short, the submission of Shri Swarup on behalf of the appellant Board is that since the writ petitioners are not entitled to receive any increment, question of retention of the amounts paid whether by mistake of fact or otherwise does not and cannot arise. We, however, are not in a position to lend any credence to the same by reason of the fact that while the increments granted have been sought to be recovered but promotions given have not been withdrawn or cancelled, the Board being the governmental agency and fairness being the only accepted methodology cannot maintain a dual standard on the basis of the selfsame Regulation. Regulation 7 of the Regulation itself provides that there shall not be any increment or any promotion nor would the employees be allowed to cross the efficiency bar. The petitioners have been given due promotions and as a matter of fact the petitioner in CWJC No. 4576 of 1997 is posted as an Accountant in the Electricity Supply Sub-Division at Sheohar Town in District Sheohar on promotion. Of the dual benefits conferred the Board however thus withdrew only one part of the benefit under the resolution whereas it lent a blind eye as regards the other part of the benefit flowing from the resolution. This, in our view is not permissible since dual standards are not only non-acceptable but ought to be avoided more so by reason of the factum of the appellant being an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. 8. The contention in support of the appeal as regards the deemed incorporation in the terms and conditions of service cannot also find any support by reason of the fact that unilateral change of terms need not be had. There is no documentary evidence available on the record of this matter through which even an intimation to the staff can be said to have been effected and in the absence of which question of affording any credence to the submission of Mr. Swarup on this score does not arise. 9. There is no documentary evidence available on the record of this matter through which even an intimation to the staff can be said to have been effected and in the absence of which question of affording any credence to the submission of Mr. Swarup on this score does not arise. 9. Further, an analysis of the factual score at this juncture goes to show that the respondents appointed in the year 1966 were allowed to have due increments in terms of the service conditions and salary structure and were also granted promotions in due course of service and have been asked after an expiry of about 14-15 years to replenish the Board exchequer from out of the employees' salaries which were paid to them since the year 1979. It is on this score the High Court observed that as both the petitioners have passed the examination though in the year 1993, their entitlement for relief cannot be doubted in any way. 10. The High Court also relied on the unreported decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Saheed Kumar Banerjee vs. Bihar SEB. We do record our concurrence with the observations of this Court in Sahib Ram case and come to a conclusion that since payments have been made without any representation or a misrepresentation, the appellant Board could not possibly be granted any liberty to deduct or recover the excess amount paid by way of increments at an earlier point of time. The act or acts on the part of the appellant Board cannot under any circumstances be said to be in consonance with equity, good conscience and justice. The concept of fairness has been given a goby. As such the actions initiated for recovery cannot be sustained under any circumstances. This order however be restricted to the facts of the present writ petitioners. It is clarified that Regulation 8 will operate on its own and the Board will be at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law except however in the case or cases which has/have attained finality. 11. While we record our concurrence as noted above, in regard to the decision of the matter in issue and in particular reference to the factual aspect we do not feel inclined to accept the observations of the High Court pertaining to Regulation 8 of the Regulation. 11. While we record our concurrence as noted above, in regard to the decision of the matter in issue and in particular reference to the factual aspect we do not feel inclined to accept the observations of the High Court pertaining to Regulation 8 of the Regulation. Be it noted that the High Court in para 13 of the judgment observed that the Board shall not be allowed to pass an order for recovery of the said amount as the said amount has already become due to them. This observation sounds contrary to Regulation 8 of the Regulations which records that no arrears of the stopped increments shall be payable even though the person would pass the examination later on. We, therefore, record our disapproval to this observation of the High Court.” (Emphasis supplied) (viii) It has held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Purshottam Lal Das and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2006) 11 SCC 492 , especially in paragraph nos. 7, 10 and 11, which read as under:- “7. So far as the recovery is concerned, in the normal course if the promotion/ appointment is void ab initio, a mere fact that the employee had worked in the post concerned for long cannot be a ground for not directing recovery. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the State were rendered in a different backdrop. In those cases the appellants were guilty of producing forged certificates or the appointments had been secured on non-permissible grounds. In that background this Court held that recovery is permissible. On the contrary, the fact situation of the present case bears some similarity to Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana, Bihar SEB vs. Bijay Bhadur and State of Karnataka vs. Mangalore University Non-Teaching Employees' Assn. 10. The High Court itself noted that the appellants deserve sympathy as for no fault of theirs, recoveries were directed when admittedly they worked in the promotional posts. But relief was denied on the ground that those who granted (sic) had committed gross irregularities. 11. While, therefore, not accepting the challenge to the orders of reversion on the peculiar circumstances noticed, we direct that no recovery shall be made from the amounts already paid in respect of the promotional posts. But relief was denied on the ground that those who granted (sic) had committed gross irregularities. 11. While, therefore, not accepting the challenge to the orders of reversion on the peculiar circumstances noticed, we direct that no recovery shall be made from the amounts already paid in respect of the promotional posts. However, no arrears or other financial benefits shall be granted in respect of the period concerned.” (Emphasis supplied) (ix) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) vs. Government of India and Others, (2006) 11 SCC 709 , especially in paragraph nos. 27, 28, 29, 30, which read as under:- “27. The last question to be considered is whether relief should be granted against the recovery of the excess payments made on account of the wrong interpretation/ understanding of the circular dated 7.6.1999. This Court has consistently granted relief against recovery of excess wrong payment of emoluments/allowances from an employee, if the following conditions are fulfilled (vide Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana, Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India, Union of India vs. M. Bhaskar and V. Gangaram vs. Regional Jt. Director):- (a) The excess payment was not made on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee. (b) 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. “28. Such relief, restraining back recovery of excess payment, is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, in exercise of judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is implemented. A government servant, particularly one in the lower rungs of service would spend whatever emoluments he receives for the upkeep of his family. If he receives an excess payment for a long period, he would spend it, genuinely believing that he is entitled to it. As any subsequent action to recover the excess payment will cause undue hardship to him, relief is granted in that behalf. But where the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, courts will not grant relief against recovery. But where the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, courts will not grant relief against recovery. The matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case refuse to grant such relief against recovery. 29. On the same principle, pensioners can also seek a direction that wrong payments should not be recovered, as pensioners are in a more disadvantageous position when compared to in service employees. Any attempt to recover excess wrong payment would cause undue hardship to them. The petitioners are not guilty of any misrepresentation or fraud in regard to the excess payment. NPA was added to minimum pay, for purposes of stepping up, due to a wrong understanding by the implementing departments. We are therefore of the view that the respondents shall not recover any excess payments made towards pension in pursuance of the circular dated 7.6.1999 till the issue of the clarificatory circular dated 11.9.2001. Insofar as any excess payment made after the circular dated 11.9.2001, obviously the Union of India will be entitled to recover the excess as the validity of the said circular has been upheld and as pensioners have been put on notice in regard to the wrong calculations earlier made. 30. A faint attempt was made by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents to contend that all such wrong payments could be recovered and at best the pensioners may be entitled to time or instalments to avoid hardship. No doubt in Union of India vs. Sujatha Vedachalam this Court did not bar the recovery of excess pay, but directed recovery in easy instalments. The said decision does not lay down a principle that relief from recovery should not be granted in regard to emoluments wrongly paid in excess, or that only relief in such cases is grant of instalments. A direction to recover the excess payment in instalments or a direction not to recover excess payment, is made as a consequential direction, after the main issue relating to the validity of the order refixing or reducing the pay/allowance/pension is decided. In some cases, the petitioners may merely seek quashing of the order refixing the pay and may not seek any consequential relief. In some cases, the petitioners may merely seek quashing of the order refixing the pay and may not seek any consequential relief. In some cases, the petitioners may make a supplementary prayer seeking instalments in regard to refund of the excess payment if the validity of the order refixing the pay is upheld. In some other cases, the petitioners may pray that such excess payments should not be recovered. The grant of consequential relief would, therefore, depend upon the consequential prayer made. If the consequential prayer was not for waiving the excess payment but only for instalments, the court would obviously consider only the prayer for instalments. If any decision which upholds the refixation of pay/ pension does not contain any consequential direction not to recover the excess payment already made or contains a consequential direction to recover the excess payment in instalments, it is not thereby laying down any proposition of law but is merely issuing consequential direction in exercise of judicial discretion, depending upon the prayer for consequential relief or absence of prayer for consequential relief as the case may be, and the facts and circumstances of the case. Many a time the prayer for instalments or waiver of recovery of excess is made not in the pleadings but during arguments or when the order is dictated upholding the order revising or refixating the pay/pension. Therefore, the decision in Sujatha Vedachalam will not come in the way of relief being granted to the pensioners in regard to the recovery of excess payments.” (Emphasis supplied) (x) It has been held by this Court in the case of Laxman Prasad Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2008 (3) JCR 655 (FB), at paragraph no. 20, as under:- 20. In view of the above discussion, we come to the following conclusion. To sum up: “In the light of the absence of any material to show that the excess amount was received by the petitioner on misrepresentation, collusion, fraud or negligence, the said excess amount cannot be recovered out of the retiral dues, after retirement, without following the procedure contemplated under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. In this case the said procedure, which is mandatory, has not been followed. In this case the said procedure, which is mandatory, has not been followed. Therefore, the action of the respondents for recovery of the amount from the retiral dues is not valid in law.” (Emphasis supplied) (xi) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Bihar and Others vs. Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad, (2009) 3 SCC 117 , especially in paragraph nos. 16, 19, 23 and 24, which read as under:- “16. Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if we consider that the respondent had fraudulently entered another date of birth in his service book, as had been alleged, it should have come to the notice of the authorities during his course of service, and not after he had attained the age of superannuation after the expiry of the date mentioned in the service book which was based on the affidavit of the respondent. To the contrary, none of the officials responsible had noticed this during his service period, even during his time of promotions when the service book was required to be inspected by the officials. Therefore, it clearly points out to the gross negligence and lapses on the part of the authorities concerned and in our view, the respondent cannot be held responsible to work beyond his date of birth as mentioned in the matriculation certificate when admittedly in the service book after the affidavit, some other date of birth was also evident. 19. It is not needed for this Court to verify the veracity of the statements made by the parties. If at all the respondent entered the second date of birth at a subsequent period of time, the authorities concerned should have detected it and there should have been a detailed enquiry to determine whether the respondent was responsible for the same. It has been held in a catena of judicial pronouncements that even if by mistake, higher pay scale was given to the employee, without there being misrepresentation or fraud, no recovery can be effected from the retiral dues in the monetary benefit available to the employee. 23. It has been held in a catena of judicial pronouncements that even if by mistake, higher pay scale was given to the employee, without there being misrepresentation or fraud, no recovery can be effected from the retiral dues in the monetary benefit available to the employee. 23. Without going into the question whether the appellant was justified after completion of two years from the actual date of retirement to deduct two years' salary and other emoluments paid to the respondent, we may say that since the respondent had worked during that period without raising any objection from the side of the appellant and the appellant had got works done by the respondent, we do not think that it was proper at this stage to allow deduction from his retiral benefits, the amount received by him as salary, after his actual date of retirement. 24. Considering the fact that there was no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud, which could be attributed to the respondent and considering the fact that the appellant had allowed the respondent to work and got works done by him and paid salary, it would be unfair at this stage to deduct the said amount of salary paid to him. Accordingly, we are in agreement with the Division Bench decision that since the respondent was allowed to work and was paid salary for his work during the period of two years after his actual date of retirement without raising any objection whatsoever, no deduction could be made for that period from the retiral dues of the respondent.” (Emphasis supplied) (xii) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Syed Abdul Qadir and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2009) 3 SCC 475 , especially in paragraph nos. 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61, which read 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. 58. 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. 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. 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 instalments/amount had already been recovered from some of the teachers. 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 instalments/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. 61. In the result, the appeals are allowed in part, the impugned judgment so far as it relates to the direction given for recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers is set aside and that part of the impugned judgment whereby it has been held by the Division Bench that the amended provisions of FR 22C would apply to the appellant teachers is upheld. We direct that no recovery of the excess amount, that has been paid to the teachers of secondary schools, be made, irrespective of the fact whether they have moved this Court or not. We also direct that the amount that has been recovered from some of the teachers, after the impugned judgment was passed by the High Court, irrespective of the fact whether they have moved this Court or not, be refunded to them within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.” (Emphasis supplied) (xiii) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Paras Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2009) 6 SCC 314 , especially in paragraph nos. 4 & 5, which read as under:- “4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the State authorities had allowed the appellant to work for about 10 years and paid the salary at the enhanced rate, in which the appellant had no role to play except that he had given an undertaking to the authorities that in the event his first time bound promotion was cancelled, in that case, he would be bound to refund the same. 5. 5. Having considered the fact that the appellant was only a Class IV employee in the State of Bihar and almost an illiterate person and did not know the implications of giving such undertaking and in the absence of any fraud and misrepresentation attributed to the appellant and the amount being not so excessive, in particular Rs 1,01,529.50, out of which certain amount has already been recovered from the salary of the appellant by the State authorities, we are of the view that a lenient view should be taken and the amount already paid by the State authorities to the appellant shall not be recovered. However, whatever amount that has already been recovered, shall not be paid back to the appellant.” (Emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid decisions even though the respondent was given wrong pay scale, but, as there is no misrepresentation or fraud played by the employee no amount can be recovered by the State. Moreover, after April, 2008, the respondent has already been a Trained Teacher and hence, her pay scale cannot be reduced. Thus, neither for a period post April, 2008 any amount can be recovered nor for the period, pre April, 2008 any amount can be recovered from the respondent. (xiv) So far as fixation of pay scale is concerned from April, 2008 the respondent is surely entitled to get a pay scale of Trained Teacher. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the pay scale of the respondent (original petitioner) cannot be reduced to Rs. 4000-6000/- as per the order of the appellants dated 24th November, 2008 and no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in quashing and setting aside the said order passed by the appellants, which is at Annexure-12 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. Moreover, no recovery can be made by the appellants from the respondent for pre April, 2008 period nor for post April, 2008 period and no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in appreciating these aspects of the matter while allowing the writ petition being WP (S) No 2996 of 2009 dated 12th March, 2014 and therefore, the respondent (original petitioner) is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/-. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and hence, the same is hereby, dismissed.