ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Since the issues involved in all the writ petitions are same and similar, they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioners have approached this Court with a common prayer for quashing letter bearing memo No. 1774/B dated 16.06.2016 issued by the Special Secretary to Govt., Department of Planning-cum-Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, so far it relates to the present petitioners, wherein it has been provided that pay-scale of the teachers will be fixed as per Rule- 22(I)(a)(2) of the Fundamental Rules and accordingly, order is passed to take appropriate steps for implementation of the same without properly considering the provisions applicable in the case of present petitioners. Further prayer has been made for quashing of consequential orders issued vide letter dated 24.07.2016 by the District Superintendent of Education, Chatra (in W.P.S. Nos. 2072 of 2017, 3263 of 2017); letter dated 26.04.2017 by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau and also letter dated 22.05.2017 issued by District Superintendent of Education, Palamu (in W.P.S. No. 3222 of 2017, 3985 of 2017 and 3274 of 2017); letters dated 22.05.2017, 24.05.2017 and 29.05.2017 (in W.P.S. Nos. 3293 of 2017, 3340 of 2017, 4502 of 2017); letter dated 24.09.2016 by the District Superintendent of Education, Khunti (in W.P.S. Nos. 6652 of 2016 and 6671 of 2016), wherein it has been ordered to recover the excess amount paid to the present petitioners, in view of wrong fixation of their pay-scales. The petitioners in W.P(S). Nos. 3545 of 2017, 3546 of 2017, 3783 of 2017 have prayed for quashing the order contained in memo No. 227 dated 09.02.2017 issued by the respondents whereby direction was given to withdraw the additional increment given to the petitioners and others at the time of fixation of pay-scale pursuant to grant of promotion on Grade-II scale and to fix the pay-scale accordingly and also prayed for quashing of letter dated 29.04.2017, whereby the respondents have directed to recover the excess payment made to the petitioners and others. 4. The facts of the cases lie in a narrow compass. The petitioners are working as Govt. Teachers in different Primary & Middle Schools within the State of Jharkhand and performing their duties to the utter satisfaction of the respondent-authorities. 4. The facts of the cases lie in a narrow compass. The petitioners are working as Govt. Teachers in different Primary & Middle Schools within the State of Jharkhand and performing their duties to the utter satisfaction of the respondent-authorities. It is the case of the petitioners that some of them have been granted Grade-1 scale from the date of their joining and upon completion of 12 years of services, they were granted Grade-2 scale and accordingly, their pay-scale has been fixed and arrears of salary were also paid to them. Subsequently, the Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand issued its Gazette Notification dated 28.02.2009 for implementation of 6th Pay Revision wherein, in clause-13 it has been provided that in the case of promotion from one Grade Pay to another in the revised pay structure, one increment equal to 3% of the sum of the pay-band and the existing grade will be computed and rounded-up and thereafter, grade pay to the promotional post will be granted. Thereafter, the Secretary to the Govt., Finance Department also issued a letter dated 18.04.2009, wherein, at Clause-4 it has been provided that the in case of promotion granted after 01.01.2006, the pay-scale will be fixed and determined as per the FR 22(I)(a)(1), which is also applicable in the case of present petitioners. It is the specific case of the petitioners that Gazette Notification as well as the letter of the Finance Secretary is fully applicable in the case of present petitioners as because they have got their promotion in Grade-2 after 01.01.2006 and accordingly, the arrears of salary has also been released. The petitioners were working and discharging their duties to the utter satisfaction of all concerned, but all of a sudden, a letter dated 16.06.2016 was issued by the Special Secretary to the Govt., Planning-cum-Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, wherein it has been provided that in case of the fixation of pay-scale of the teachers, FR -22(1)(a)(1) has been followed whereas FR-22(1)(a)(2) ought to have been followed and accordingly, order has been issued for taking steps to recover the excess amount. of Jharkhand, wherein it has been provided that in case of the fixation of pay-scale of the teachers, FR -22(1)(a)(1) has been followed whereas FR-22(1)(a)(2) ought to have been followed and accordingly, order has been issued for taking steps to recover the excess amount. In pursuant to the letter dated 16.06.2016, the District Superintendent of Education, Khunti, Palamu, Chatra and other districts have issued order vide various letters annexed in the respective writ petitions, wherein it has been ordered that the excess amount paid to the petitioners as the fixation on account of their promotion in Grade-2 after completion of 12 years, one increment and the benefit of 22(i)(ii)(i) is not required to be given and the excess amount paid after one increment and on that basis the pay-fixation/ excess payment made to the petitioners/ teachers is recoverable. Upon issuance of such letter, the petitioners have made several representations but no action has been taken by the respondents. Hence, the petitioners have knocked the door of this Hon’ble Court for redressal of their grievances. 5. Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari along with Mr. Saurav Arun and Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously urge that action of the respondents in issuing letters determining that the pay-scale of the petitioners upon promotion to Grade-2 scale shall be fixed as per the provisions as contained in rule-22(1)(a)(2) of the Fundamental Rules is wholly arbitrary, unjust and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further argues that while issuing the said letter, a direction was given to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioners but the respondents have not taken into account the letter which was issued by the State of Bihar vide memo No. 7946 dated 16.11.2000 and the fact that the promotion of the petitioners in Grade-2 was granted after completion of 12 years of services after 01.01.2006 i.e. after implementation of 6th Pay Commission and therefore, the letter issued by the State of Bihar is not at all applicable in case of the present petitioners and hence, the impugned letters are wholly unjustified and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further argues that the State of Bihar issued further letter on the basis of 5th Pay Revision Circular and it is directed that the teachers will get their pay fixation done from 01.01.1996 under Rule 22(1)(a)(1), which can be substantiated from the circular issued vide letter dated 24.03.2004 (Annexure-13 to the rejoinder dated 01.05.2018 filed by the petitioners in W.P.S. No. 2072 of 2017). Learned counsel further argues that the respondents while issuing the impugned letter has not at all considered the resolution of the State of Jharkhand dated 28.02.2009 published in Jharkhand Gazette Extra Ordinary and further letter No. 1303 dated 18.04.2009, issued by the Secretary, Department of Finance, State of Jharkhand, clause-13 and 14, respectively, which clearly provides that where the increment shall be added in existing pay-scale and thereafter, the pay-scale in promotional post shall be calculated and fixed which is in the case of the present petitioners and hence, the impugned letters are unsustainable in the eyes of law. It has been further argued that the action of the respondents in issuing recovery of the excess amount paid to the present petitioners, that too without issuance of any show-cause or notice, on account of promotion in Grade-2 after completion of 12 years is tainted with bias and malafide and issued in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and as such, the same is wholly unjust & unsustainable in the eyes of law. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners places heavy reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) & Ors., reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 . 6. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel argues that Rule-22(1)(a)(2) of the Fundamental Rules is applicable to the present petitioners but inadvertently, the pay-scale of the present petitioners have been fixed in view of FR-22(1)(a)(1) and accordingly order has been passed to take appropriate steps for implementation of the same. The rationale behind implementation of FR- 22 (1) (a) (2) in the case of teachers was that they were not entitled to the additional increment as upon promotion they were not discharging their duties and responsibilities of greater importance on the promoted post. The rationale behind implementation of FR- 22 (1) (a) (2) in the case of teachers was that they were not entitled to the additional increment as upon promotion they were not discharging their duties and responsibilities of greater importance on the promoted post. Their work and responsibilities remained same as were before the said promotion. Learned counsel further argues that letter dated 16.11.2000 (Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit filed on 04.07.2018 in W.P.S. No. 2072 of 2017) had been issued after the reorganization of the State, the same is automatically applicable to the State of Jharkhand. Accordingly, the State of Jharkhand vide its letter bearing No. 106 dated 16.12.2000 adopted the said letter issued by the State of Bihar. In certain cases revised pay-scales have been paid to the teachers from the date of their promotion in violation of FR-22(1)(a)(2) and hence, the direction for recovery of the excess amount had also been made. As per Clause-12(3) of the Primary Teacher Promotion Rules, 1993 also, that on account of grant of promotion to Grade – 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8, the pay of the teachers is not to be fixed in terms of Fundamental Rule 22(1)(a)(1) because it does not add additional/ greater responsibilities on these grades. Learned counsel further argues that the said issue has already been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Syed Abdul Qadir Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 , wherein the fixation of pay-scale on the basis of FR-22(1)(a)(2) has been upheld. 7. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of records, this Court is of the considered opinion that the cases of the petitioners need consideration, so far recovery part is concerned. Admittedly, the pay-fixation has been done by the respondents themselves following the cardinal principles of law. The petitioners have not misrepresented anything on their side and as such, punishment of recovery of excess paid amount cannot be imposed upon them. It is not desirable for the respondents to recover any amount which has already been paid to the petitioners on the ground of wrong fixation of pay and excess payment. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) vs. Govt. It is not desirable for the respondents to recover any amount which has already been paid to the petitioners on the ground of wrong fixation of pay and excess payment. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) vs. Govt. of India, reported in (2006) 11 SCC 709 has held that : “recovery of excess wrong payment of emoluments/ allowances of an employee is not permissible if: (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.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court para-18 in case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vrs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. [(2014) 4 SCC 334], has held as under :- “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, 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. (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.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417 as held as under:- “We may in this respect refer to the judgment of two-Judge Bench of this Court in Col. B.J. Akkara (retd.) case (supra) where this Court after referring to Shyam Babu Verma case, Sahib Ram case (supra) and few other decisions held as follows: Such relief, restraining recovery back 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.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 , has held as under:- “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." The Full Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Smt. Normi Topno vs the State Of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2008 (1) JCR 381 Jhr., has held as under:- “After retirement, there is no relationship of employer and employee and as such no recovery can be made from the retrial benefits without following procedure of law as provided under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Hence, without fulfilling the conditions under Rule 43(b) and without cancelling the order of promotion after enquiry by the competent authority, pension and other retiral benefits cannot be recovered that too without giving opportunity to the retired employee and without giving any finding with reference to the mis-representation or misconduct on the part of the concerned employee or any other employee merely on the recommendation of audit objection.” 9. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order regarding recovery is not tenable in the eyes of law and accordingly, I hereby quash and set aside the consequential orders issued in pursuance to letter No. 1774/B dated 16.06.2016, regarding recovery of the excess payment made to the petitioners, vide letter dated 24.07.2016 by the District Superintendent of Education, Chatra (in W.P.S. Nos. 2072 of 2017, 3263 of 2017); letter dated 26.04.2017 by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu and also letter dated 22.05.2017 issued by District Superintendent of Education, Palamu (in W.P.S. No. 3222 of 2017, 3985 of 2017 and 3274 of 2017); letters dated 22.05.2017, 24.05.2017 and 29.05.2017 (in W.P.S. Nos. 3293 of 2017, 3340 of 2017, 4502 of 2017); letter dated 24.09.2016 by the District Superintendent of Education, Khunti (in W.P.S. Nos. 6652 of 2016 and 6671 of 2016), and order contained in memo No. 227 dated 09.02.2017 and letter dated 29.04.2017 in W.P(S). Nos. 3545 of 2017, 3546 of 2017 & 3783 of 2017, so for as it relates to the present petitioners. 10. Respondents are directed not to recover any amount from the salary of the petitioners and, if any amount has already been recovered from the salary of the petitioners, the same shall be refunded to them, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 11. Further from perusal of the letter dated 24.03.2004 (Annexure-13 to the rejoinder dated 01.05.2018 filed by the petitioners in W.P.S. No. 2072 of 2017) issued by the Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar and upon going through the averments made in the supplementary affidavit, I am of the considered opinion that the issues has been elaborately dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 . The relevant paras of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:- “39. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 . The relevant paras of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:- “39. Rule 22(I)(a)(1) provides that when a government servant is promoted or appointed to a higher post and the higher post he is promoted to carries duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the post held by him, his initial pay in the time-scale of the higher post shall be fixed at the stage next above the notional pay arrived at by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post held by him regularly by an increment at the stage at which such pay has accrued or rupees one hundred only whichever is more. 40. According to FR.22(I)(a)(2), the benefit of an additional increment, which is available to a government servant under FR.22 (I)(a)(1), would not be available to the government servant if the higher post he is promoted or appointed to does not carry duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the post held by him. 41. Even, according to FR.22-C, the additional increment was to be granted only in cases where the incumbent on promotion or appointment to a higher post has to discharge the duties and responsibilities of greater importance. Therefore, in cases where on promotion or appointment to the higher post no duties and responsibilities of greater importance - than those being discharged in the post held by the incumbent regularly prior to the promotion - were to be discharged by the government servant, the pay fixation formula is provided for under FR.22(I)(a)(2) according to which benefit of additional increment is not to be extended at the time of fixation of pay on the promotional post. …………… …………… 48. Having regard to the provisions of Clause 13 of Resolution dated 18.12.1989, we hold that pay fixation on promotion of the assistant teachers of Nationalised Schools in the State of Bihar would be governed by FR.22(I)(a)(1) and FR.22(I)(a)(2), as the case may be, and not by FR.22-C, which was not even in existence on the day Resolution dated 18.12.1989 was issued by the Finance Department of the Government of Bihar. Insofar as the appellants-teachers are concerned, since they were not discharging any duties and responsibilities of greater importance on their promotion to the higher post/grade, which is sine qua non for being eligible for an additional increment, they would be governed by FR.22(I)(a)(2) and not by FR.22(I)(a)(1). ……… ……… 52. Ordinarily, we would have held that the amended provisions of FR.22-C would apply to the appellants - teachers w.e.f. 16.9.1989, i.e., the date from which the amended provisions of FR.22-C were notified. But, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and having regard to the fact that the State Government did not move this Court against the decision of the Division Bench whereby letters patent appeal preferred by the State Government challenging judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that Resolution dated 20.2.1993 amending sub-clause (ii) of Clause 13 of the Resolution would apply to the class of teachers referred to in the said sub-clause prospectively i.e., w.e.f. the date of issuance of the Resolution dated 20.2.1993, was dismissed, we hold that FR.22(I)(a)(2) shall apply to the teachers of Secondary Schools also w.e.f. 20.2.1993” 12. As such, in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. (supra), there is no illegality or any infirmity in fixation of the pay of the present petitioners in light of FR-22(I)(a)(2) and as such, no interference is warranted so far as pay-fixation is concerned. 13. As cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, these writ petitions stands disposed of.