ORDER : S.C. Sharma, J. 1. Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of Writ Petition No.3805/2015 are narrated hereunder. 2. The petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by order dated 31/01/2015 passed by respondent No.4 Janpad Panchayat, Maheshwar by which the petitioner's representation has been rejected. The petitioner is also aggrieved by order dated 09/06/2015 passed by Principal, Govt. Hr. Sec. School, Bablali, Distt. Khargone by which a recovery has been ordered against the petitioner. 3. The petitioner's contention is that he was initially appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi/Guruji on 02/06/1997. The petitioner has further stated that the State Government has conducted an examination for the post of Shiksha Karmi and the petitioner was appointed as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III by an order dated 19/02/2013. 4. The petitioner's contention is that basic qualification for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi/Guruji/Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III and Sahayak Adhyapak is Higher Secondary and earlier persons were appointed on the post of Guruji/Shiksha Karmi and thereafter, they have been appointed on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-I, II and III. 5. The petitioner has further stated that the State Government has framed the rules known as M. P. Adhyapak Samvarg (Employment & Conditions of Services) Rule, 2008 and by virtue of the aforesaid Rules persons who were holding the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III were merged/appointed on the post of Sahayak Adhyapak. The education qualification provided under the Rules is Higher Secondary with a degree of B.T.C./D.Ed./D.S.E. 6. The petitioner has further stated that since he was not granted benefit of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III from the date of initial appointment, he came up before this Court by filing a writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No.2193/2012 and this Court has passed an order directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the judgment delivered in the case of Gopal Chawala v. State of M. P. and Others. 7. The petitioner has further stated that thereafter, the respondents have passed an order and they have ordered recovery against the petitioner. It has been further stated that the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. 7. The petitioner has further stated that thereafter, the respondents have passed an order and they have ordered recovery against the petitioner. It has been further stated that the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner's contention is that he is entitled for pay scale of the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III right from inception in service i.e. 26/06/1997 and subsequent order dated 31/01/2015 passed by the respondents rejecting the representation of the petitioner is bad in law and the recovery order dated 09/06/2015 passed by the respondents is again bad in law. 8. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner was holding qualification for the post of Shiksha Karmi and therefore, even though he was appointed as a Guruji, he is entitled for the pay scale of Guruji since 26/06/1997. The petitioner has prayed for quashment of the impugned order. 9. A detailed and exhaustive reply has been filed by the respondents and the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner was appointed under the Shiksha Guarantee Scheme, 1997 and under this scheme 20000 Majhra Tola Villages Primary School were established and Gurujis were appointed. The respondents have further submitted that appointment of Guruji was proposed by the community itself and the Guruji was a person belonging to the same Majhra Tola having minimum qualification of Higher Secondary. 10. It was also provided under the scheme that if in case local eligible person is not available having then the person having High School qualification could also be given appointment on honorarium basis. Schools were opened on the basis of the need of community. Respondents have enclosed M. P. Education Guarantee Scheme, 1997 along with the reply as Annex.-R/1. 11. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent is that at the time of appointment of Gurujis, there was no procedure nor recruitment rules were framed for appointment of Guruji under the Education Guarantee Scheme and the petitioner cannot compare his case with the teachers appointed under the various recruitment rules. It is further stated that under the M. P. Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2001 and M. P. Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak Niyam, 2005 the respondents have conducted the recruitment process by calling candidature from the employment exchange for the post of Teacher and the petitioner has qualified the examination conducted by the State Government. 12. It is further stated that under the M. P. Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2001 and M. P. Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak Niyam, 2005 the respondents have conducted the recruitment process by calling candidature from the employment exchange for the post of Teacher and the petitioner has qualified the examination conducted by the State Government. 12. The respondent/State has further stated that the petitioner has been appointed on account of Recruitment Rules of the year 2005 and also on account of Recruitment Rules, 2012 which also provides for recruitment. The respondents have further stated that the process of recruitment for Gurujis as well as Samvida Shala Shikshak is altogether different and Gurujis were permitted to appear in the examination conducted by the State Government. They were given 10 to 15 marks for their experience. Examination was held time and again in the year 2001, 2003, 2005 and 2008 and the Gurujis who were successful in eligibility test were appointed on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III. 13. The petitioner has also been given appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III on the basis of the test conducted in the year 2008 as he has acquired the qualification for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III and he is entitled for pay scale of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III only from the date he has been regularly appointed i.e. 11/10/2012. The respondents have also stated that those Gurujis who have completed three years of service are entitled for honorarium to the tune of Rs.2,875/- w.e.f. 17/04/2008. 14. The respondents have further stated that the petitioner was absorbed as Adhyapak by order dated 25/06/2015 on completion of three years of service, however, on account of wrong interpretation, on 19/02/2013, the petitioner was granted pay scale w.e.f. 26/06/1997. The respondents have further stated that the petitioner was appointed as Guruji on 26/06/1997 on a honorarium of Rs.1,000/- per month and he is entitled for enhanced honorarium w.e.f. 17/04/2008 to the tune of Rs.2,875/- and therefore, the excess amount received by the petitioner has to be refunded by the petitioner. 15. The respondents have further stated that the petitioner was appointed as Guruji on 26/06/1997 on a honorarium of Rs.1,000/- per month and he is entitled for enhanced honorarium w.e.f. 17/04/2008 to the tune of Rs.2,875/- and therefore, the excess amount received by the petitioner has to be refunded by the petitioner. 15. The respondents have further stated that the petitioner at the time he was given the arrears was directed to furnish an undertaking and the petitioner has furnished an undertaking that in case any adverse order is passed in favour of the petitioner he will refund the excess amount. Copy of the undertaking given by the petitioner is enclosed with the reply as Annex.-R/8. 16. The contention of the respondent/State is that the petitioner who was appointed as Guruji in the year 2007 cannot be paid regular pay scale of the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III prior to his appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III and therefore, the impugned order has rightly been passed. 17. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 18. The undisputed fact reveals that by virtue of policy framed by the State Government known as M. P. Education Guarantee Scheme of the year 1997, the Gurujis were appointed in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Gurujis were appointed in 20000 Majhra Tola Villages Primary Schools. The process of appointment of Gurujis was based upon the proposal submitted by the community. It was not a process of selection based upon any advertisement. The Gurujis were paid honorarium to the tune of Rs.1,000/- per month and the honorarium has been revised w.e.f. 17/04/2008 and the same is Rs.2,875/-. 19. The State Government has framed the Rules for appoint of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III known as M.P. Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2001 and 2005 as well as 2012. There is a process of recruitment provided for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III. The petitioner has participated in the process of selection and was issued an appointment order on 11/10/2012. The petitioner was later on absorbed after completion of three years of service as Adhyapak vide order dated 25/06/2015, meaning thereby, the petitioner prior to his selection as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III vide order dated 11/10/2012 was a Guruji and he is certainly entitled for honorarium only for the post of Guruji. 20. The petitioner was later on absorbed after completion of three years of service as Adhyapak vide order dated 25/06/2015, meaning thereby, the petitioner prior to his selection as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III vide order dated 11/10/2012 was a Guruji and he is certainly entitled for honorarium only for the post of Guruji. 20. In the earlier round of litigation, this Court has directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the order passed in Gopal Chawala v. State of M. P. and Others, Writ Appeal No.596/2010 and the petitioner's case was considered for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III, as he has qualified the examination he was appointed as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III on 11/10/2012. However, the respondents by mistake on account of erroneous interpretation of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court have granted pay scale of the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III to the petitioner w.e.f. 2007. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner was not a Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III in the year 2007 and the respondents have rectified the mistake and excess amount paid to the petitioner is being recovered. 21. The petitioner at the time he was granted appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III, was also granted arrears of salary and he has submitted an undertaking which is on record and the same reads as under:- Ái=&rhu opu i= (Undertaking) eSa fouksn jkBkSM+ vkRet Jh dqojth jkBkSM+ fuoklh&xzke&ccykbZ rglhy⪖'oj ftyk&[kjxksu e0 iz0 fuEufyf[kr opu djrh@djrk gwa fd%& ;g fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [k.M+ ihB bUnkSj dh ;kfpdk d@2193@2012 ,l ds rgr ikfjr fu.kZ;kuqlkj fnukad 20@03@2012 ds ifjikyu esa f'k{kkdehZ@lgk0 v/;kid@lafonk f'k{kd@xq:th dks mudh fu;qfDr fnukad ls f'k{kkdehZ oxZ&3 ds leku osru HkRrsa dk vkns'k eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh tuin iapk;r egs'oj }kjk vkns'k da0@LFkk0@2013 egs'oj, fnukad 19@02@2013 dks fn;k x;k gSA ;g vkns'k ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ds v/khu tkjh fd;k x;k gSA ;fn Hkfo"; esa 'kklu }kjk vFkok ekuuh;; U;k;ky; }kjk foifjr vkns'k tkjh fd;k tkrk gS rks ;g vkns'k Lor% fujLr ekudj izkIr jkf'k ,d eq'r foHkkx dks okil d:axk@d:axhA fnukad%&21@02@2013 gLrk{kj 'kiFkx`fgrk @@lR;kiu@@ eSa mijksDr 'kiFk xzfgrk lR;kfir djrk gwa fd mDr of.kZr lHkh tkudkjh@rF; esjs futh Kku o fo'okl ds vuqlku lgh ,oa lR; gSA gLrk{kj 'kiFkx`fgrk 22. This Court, keeping in view the aforesaid undertaking, is of the opinion that the respondents have rightly passed the impugned order dated 31/01/2015 and consequential recovery order 09/06/2015. 23. Not only this, the various judgments delivered on the subject matter has been brought to the notice of this Court. First judgment has been delivered by this Court in the case of Gopal Chawala v. State of M. P. and Others passed in W.P.No.3810/2009 (S). The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by Gopal Chawala by an order dated 24/09/2010 by which Gopal Chawala and other were claiming payscale at par with the Assistant Teacher. Thereafter, a writ appeal was preferred against the judgment dated 24/09/2010 and the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.596/2010 (Gopal Chawala and Others v. State of M. P. and Others) has upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Meaning thereby, there was no order for granting regular pay scale to the Gurujis. 24. Thereafter, another writ petition was preferred again by Gopal Chawala i.e. W. P. No. 5963/2011 decided on 13/12/2011 reported in 2012(2) MPLJ 605 and paragraphs No.10 and 24 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "10. The doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' is flowing from Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India. This Article is under the directive principles in the Constitution. This principle can be pressed into service when it is read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, for making it a reality, one has to prove the wholesome equality. 24. In totality, I am unable to hold that the petitioners are either entitled for equal pay for equal work or for even minimum of the scale because there is no wholesome parity demonstrated by them. I am also unable to hold that the petitioners are entitled to get minimum wages. However, on the basis of aforesaid analysis, I am inclined to direct the respondents to reconsider the amount of "honorarium" which is being paid to the petitioner in the present days of price hike. If necessary, the respondents may appoint an expert body for the said purpose. However, the entire exercise should be done keeping in view the principles flowing from Articles 23 and 43 of the Constitution of India." 25. If necessary, the respondents may appoint an expert body for the said purpose. However, the entire exercise should be done keeping in view the principles flowing from Articles 23 and 43 of the Constitution of India." 25. Learned Single Judge has held that Gurujis are not entitled for minimum of the pay of the post of Assistant Teacher instead of honorarium of Rs.2,500/, meaning thereby, there prayer for grant of pay scale at par with the Assistant Teacher was rejected by the learned Single Judge. 26. Another writ appeal was preferred by the same Gopal Chawala and Others v. State of M. P. and Others i.e. Writ Appeal No.53/2012 and the Division Bench of this Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties at length has dismissed the writ appeal by an order dated 01/02/2012. The matter was finally travelled to the apex Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P.(C) No.18579/2012 decided on 30/10/2013 has dismissed the SLP preferred by Gopal Chawala, meaning thereby, prayer for grant of regular pay scale was rejected. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the order of learned Single Judge for enhancement of honorarium does not warrant any interference. Meaning thereby, this Court, the Division Bench of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has rejected the prayer for grant of regular pay scale/minimum of the pay scale to the Gurujis and an undertaking was given by the petitioner that he will refund the amount in case, the State Government arrives at a conclusion that he is not entitled for regular pay scale, from the date he was appointed as a Guruji. 27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors. v. Jagdev Singh passed in Civil Appeal No.3500/2006 decided on 29/06/2016 has considered the matter of recovery. A plea was raised that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the employee therein and in those circumstances quashment of recovery was sought. Paragraphs No.9 to 13 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "9. The submission of the Respondent, which found favour with the High Court, was that a payment which has been made in excess cannot be recovered from an employee who has retired from the service of the state. Paragraphs No.9 to 13 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "9. The submission of the Respondent, which found favour with the High Court, was that a payment which has been made in excess cannot be recovered from an employee who has retired from the service of the state. This, in our view, will have no application to a situation such as the present where an undertaking was specifically furnished by the officer at the time when his pay was initially revised accepting that any payment found to have been made in excess would be liable to be adjusted. While opting for the benefit of the revised pay scale, the Respondent was clearly on notice of the fact that a future refixation or revision may warrant an adjustment of the excess payment, if any, made. 10. In State of Punjab & Ors etc. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. this Court held that while it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law: "(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover." (emphasis supplied). 11. The principle enunciated in proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking. 12. For these reasons, the judgment of the High Court which set aside the action for recovery is unsustainable. However, we are of the view that the recovery should be made in reasonable instalments. We direct that the recovery be made in equated monthly instalments spread over a period of two years. 13. The judgment of the High Court is accordingly set aside. The Civil Appeal shall stand allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs." 28. In the aforesaid case also an undertaking by the employee therein was given for refunding the excess amount in case it is found that excess payment has been made and in those circumstances the apex Court has held the recovery to be lawful. 29. In light of the aforesaid, as the petitioner was appointed as Gurujis in the year 2007, he was appointed as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III in year 2012 by an order dated 11/10/2012 and he was absorbed as Adhyapak on 25/06/2015, is certainly not at all entitled for a regular pay scale right from the year 2007. At the best he is entitled for pay scale of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III only w.e.f. 11/10/2012 and pay scale to the post of Adhyapak only w.e.f. 25/06/2015 and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order passed by the respondents does not warrant any interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 30. Resultantly, all the other connected writ petitions are hereby dismissed. Certified Copy as per rules.