JUDGMENT : In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 1665 dated 30.9.2005 issued by respondent No. 3 i.e. District Superintendent of Education, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur, whereby, the pay scale of the petitioners have been reduced. Further the order of recovery sought to be made is also under challenge. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay them the salary in the scale as it was fixed before the impugned order was passed. 2. The petitioners were appointed on different dates between 1976 to 1977 to the post of Assistant Teacher in different schools within the District of East Singhbhum. The petitioners were given the benefit of first time bound promotion and their pay scale was fixed in the scale of Rs.680-965/-. On the recommendation of the 5th Pay Revision Commission, the pay scale of the petitioners were revised, w.e.f. 1.1.1986 with a rider that no arrears of salary shall be given for the period from 1.1.1986 to 28.2.1989. The government came out with a Resolution dated 18.12.1989. Clause 13(iii) of the said resolution reads as under:- “13(iii) Those teachers who have received promotion into Junior selection Grade or first time bound promotion after 1st January 1986 but before 1st March, 1989 shall be given the benefit of promotion for the purpose of fixation of their pay in the Revised scale only with effect from the date they have received promotion, or date on which they complete 12 years of service, whichever is later.” The petitioners' claim is that they were given the first time bound promotion between 1st January 1986 and before 1st March, 1989 and thus they are entitled to get the benefits of fixation of their pay in the revised scale. The petitioners got the said benefit but the same was withdrawn by order dated 27.10.1999. Aggrieved teachers preferred CWJC No. 399 of 2000 and other analogous cases before this Court challenging the withdrawal of the said benefit and the decision for recovery of the excess amount on the ground that they are entitled to get their pay fixed in the revised scale of Rs.1400-2600/-. The writ petition was heard and decided on 20.11.2001. 3. Aggrieved teachers preferred CWJC No. 399 of 2000 and other analogous cases before this Court challenging the withdrawal of the said benefit and the decision for recovery of the excess amount on the ground that they are entitled to get their pay fixed in the revised scale of Rs.1400-2600/-. The writ petition was heard and decided on 20.11.2001. 3. While deciding the said writ petition i.e. CWJC No. 399/2000, the Court has held that after completion of 12 years of service, the petitioners are entitled to get the Senior Scale of Rs.1400-2600/-. It has further been held that since the teachers, who were completed 12 years of service, are entitled to get the senior pay scale of Rs.1400-2600/-and there would be no reason to take any action for recovery of the excess amount. Ultimately, the matter was remanded before the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, to pass a fresh order on the representation of the petitioners. 4. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand decided the representation by speaking order on 21.11.2002 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). After considering the entire aspect, the Director found that, the teachers, who were given the benefit of 1st time bound promotion/Jr. Selection Grade during the period 1.1.1986 to 1.3.1989, after completion of 12 years of services, are entitled to be placed in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600/-. 5. After the order dated 21.11.2002 was passed by the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, the pay scale of the petitioners were re-fixed and they were given the benefit which was claiming by them. 6. Thereafter a letter dated 30.9.2005 was issued, as contained in Memo No. 1556 by the District Superintendent of Education, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur wherein, after interpreting clause 13(iii) of Resolution No. 6022 dated 18.12.1989, the pay of the petitioners were revised and the scale was down graded. Further an order was passed to recover the excess payment, so made, in 12 equal installments. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 7. The counsel for the State, relying on the counter affidavit, has stated that since none of the petitioners have completed 12 years of service, after getting the first time bound promotion the impugned order has been rightly passed and there is no illegality in recovering the excess amount paid to the petitioners. 7. The counsel for the State, relying on the counter affidavit, has stated that since none of the petitioners have completed 12 years of service, after getting the first time bound promotion the impugned order has been rightly passed and there is no illegality in recovering the excess amount paid to the petitioners. The counsel for the State also relies upon Clause 13(iii) of the Resolution No. 6022 dated 18.12.1989 issued by the authority concerned. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is absolutely bad and the same cannot be sustained as the petitioners were appointed to the post of Assistant teacher between 1976-1977 and were given the benefit of first time bound promotion between 1.1.1986 to 28.6.1989 and thus the petitioners have completed 12 years of their services and their salaries were rightly revised in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600/-. The counsel for the petitioners further submits that this Court had also held that the teachers who had completed 12 years of their services, are entitled to be placed in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600/-and therefore had remanded the matter to the Director, Primary Education to decide the same. His further contention is that the Director also decided the matter in favour of the petitioners and their pay scales had been fixed in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600/-and the District Superintendent of Education had got no jurisdiction to differ with the decision of the Director, Primary Education and cannot take away the benefit which was given to the petitioners. Further the counsel for the petitioners submits that by a General order the benefits given to the petitioners were taken away which is also in utter violation of the principle of natural justice as the petitioners were neither noticed nor any opportunity of hearing was given to them to place their cases, before impugned order was passed. Further Mr. Satish Uggal, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners, thus not only the impugned order withdrawing the pay scale is bad but the order of recovery is also bad. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that similar writ application was heard by this Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Mahto Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that similar writ application was heard by this Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Mahto Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2008(3)JLJR 282 in which, the Court granted similar relief, as claimed by the petitioner in this application. He further submits that against the said order, the respondent-State preferred LPA and SLP, which also stood dismissed. 9. Mrs. C. Prabha, the counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. Further she submits that the order of the Director, Primary Education has not been violated. In fact, the Director, Primary Education had ordered that if a teacher has completed 12 years of service, he is entitled to get the benefit of revised pay scale but in the instant case, since the petitioners have not completed their respective 12 years of services, from the date when they were given the first time bound promotion, the petitioners could not have been placed in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600/-. She further submits that since erroneously the said benefit was extended to the petitioners, there is no illegality in rectifying the wrong order. She further submits that the order of recovery is a mere consequential one, and the petitioners should not have been aggrieved by the same. The counsel for the State further refers and relies upon Clause 13(iii) of Resolution No. 6022 dated 18.12.1989 in support of her case. 10. The other factual aspect i.e. the grant of first time bound promotion to the petitioners and the period has not been disputed by the State. 11. From the arguments advanced by the parties, the following facts emerge; (i) The petitioners were appointed in between 1976-1977. (ii) the petitioners were given the benefit of the first time bound promotion in between 1.1.1986 to 28.6.1989; (iii) The Director, Primary Education has held that the teachers who have completed 12 years of their services are entitled to get the benefit of placement in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600/-as per Clause 13(iii) of the Resolution No. 6022 dated 18.12.1989. 12. Now the only question to be decided in this to interpret Clause 13(iii) of the Resolution No. 6022 dated 18.12.1989. 12. Now the only question to be decided in this to interpret Clause 13(iii) of the Resolution No. 6022 dated 18.12.1989. The counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners to be placed in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600/-, they must complete 12 years of service from the date they have been granted Junior Selection Grade or the First Time Bound promotion as per the resolution. 13. The Resolution No. 6022 dated 18.12.1989 has been brought on record by the petitioners. Clause 13(iii) of Resolution No. 6022 dated 18.12.1989 deals with the revision of the scale of pay of teachers who are eligible to get their pay fixed in the revised scale. By the said Resolution No. 6022 dated 18.12.1989, the State Government have decided that the revised pay scale be extended to the teachers in primary, middle and secondary +2 School, taken over by the Government under the Administrative Control of the Human Resources Development, Department. Clause 13 of the said Resolution No. 6022 dated 18.12.1989 deals with the category of teacher who is entitled to get the benefit and from which date. Both the parties rely upon Clause 13(iii) of the said Resolution No. 6022 dated 18.12.1989. Sub-Clause (iii) of Clause 13 reads as under; “13(iii) Those teachers who have received promotion into Junior selection Grade or first time bound promotion after 1st January 1986 but before 1st March, 1989 shall be given the benefit of promotion for the purpose of fixation of their pay in the Revised scale only with effect from the date they have received promotion, or date on which they complete 12 years of service whichever is later.” 14. The said clause simply provides that if a teacher who has been given the benefit of the first time bound promotion or Junior Selection Grade after first January 1986 but before 1st March, 1989, shall be given the benefit of promotion for the purpose of fixing the revised pay scale only w.e.f. the date he has been given the Time Bound Promotion/Jr. Selection Grade or on the date when he has completed 12 years of service, but whichever is later. Selection Grade or on the date when he has completed 12 years of service, but whichever is later. This means that if a teacher who has got the benefit of the Junior Selection Grade or the First Time Bound Promotion between the 1st January 1986 to 1st March, 1989 but had already completed 12 years of service much before the 1st January, 1986 would be entitled to get the benefit of pay revision only form the date when he has got the benefit of Junior Selection Grade or the First Time Bound Promotion i.e. sometime between the 1st January 1986 to 1st March, 1989. Similarly, it has been provided that if a person has got the benefit of Junior Selection Grade or the First Time Bound Promotion in between 1st January 1986 but before 1st March, 1989 and at that time he had not completed 12 years of service, he is not entitled to get the benefit of pay revision. The benefit of pay revision to this category of teacher will be given only when they complete 12 years of their services. Nowhere in the said sub-clause, it has been mentioned that a teacher has to complete 12 years of service after getting the First Time Bound Promotion or the Junior Selection Grade to get the benefit of pay revision. The only criteria to get the revision is:- (i) A teacher must have got the First Time Bound Promotion/Junior Selection Grade in between 1st January, 1986 to 1st March 1986; (ii) He must have completed 12 years of service; (iii) The said benefit would be given only after completion of 12 years of service. 15. Since there is no whisper in the said clause of Resolution No. 6022 dated 18.12.1989 that a teacher who has completed 12 years of service, after getting the first time bound promotion, or the Junior Selection Grade, the contention of the State cannot be accepted. I also find that the case of the present petitioners is similar to that of the case of Ajit Kumar Mahto Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2008(3)JLJR 282. 16. It is an accepted position that the petitioners were given the benefit of Junior Selection Grade or the First Time Bound Promotion in between the 1st January 1986 and the 1st March 1989. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2008(3)JLJR 282. 16. It is an accepted position that the petitioners were given the benefit of Junior Selection Grade or the First Time Bound Promotion in between the 1st January 1986 and the 1st March 1989. It is also admitted case that all the petitioners have completed 12 years of their respective services from the date of their appointment. This is the only requirement to get the benefit of the revised pay scale. 17. Since all the petitioners have do qualify in terms of Sub-clause (iii) of Clause 13 of Resolution No. 6022 dated 18.12.1989, the pay of the petitioners was fixed in the revised pay scale i.e. in the scale of Rs.1400-2600/-at the proper stage. The impugned order which takes away the benefit granted to the petitioners on the ground, mentioned above; cannot be sustained. 18. In view of the findings and observations made above, the impugned order dated 30.1.2003 is hereby quashed holding that the petitioners are entitled to get their pay fixed in the revised scale and they are entitled to get the benefit of corresponding revision from time to time. If the petitioners during the intervening period have been paid their salaries in reduced scale, the same will be re-calculated and the arrears be paid to them at the earliest. The entire exercise should be completed by the respondent authorities within a period of five months from today. 19. Since most of the petitioners have superannuated, they are entitled to their post retiral benefits after re-calculating and re-fixing their pay scales, accordingly. 20. This writ petition stands allowed, accordingly. WP(S) No. 6288 of 2005 21. In this case, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner of this writ petition was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Ghorabadha Middle School, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur sometime during 1976-1977. The scale of the present petitioner was fixed in the revised pay scale, which was approved by all authorities concerned. The said fixation was made in terms of the order passed by the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand and in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Mahto Vs. State of Jharkahnd and Ors. reported in 2008(3)JLJR 282. 22. The said fixation was made in terms of the order passed by the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand and in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Mahto Vs. State of Jharkahnd and Ors. reported in 2008(3)JLJR 282. 22. The counsel for the State do not dispute the fact that the petitioner was appointed some time in 1976-77 and have completed 12 years of service. It was also not disputed that the petitioner has got the benefit of First Time Bound Promotion some time in between 1st January 1986 and 1st March 1989. The only objection of the State is that the petitioner has not completed 12 years of service after he got his First Time Bound Promotion. 23. In view of the arguments advanced by the parties and on facts of this case, I find that same and similar issue, as involved in WP(S) No. 969/2006, is also involved in this case. 24. Accordingly, this writ petition is also allowed in terms of the observations and directions passed in WP(S)No. 969 of 2006.