JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The petitioner, who is working as Classical Teacher in Baunsuni Girls' High School, Baunsuni, a Non-Government Aided High School has filed this application to quash the order dated 07.02.2019 passed by the District Education Officer, Boudh under Annexure-5 so far as it relates to the petitioner. She further seeks for direction to the opposite parties to allow her to avail the benefit of remuneration of Rs. 9300/- with grade pay of Rs. 4200/-, which she has been getting since 10.11.2014 and further seeks for direction not to recover the excess financial benefits from her salary from the month of February, 2019, as per the impugned order dated 07.02.2019. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner was appointed as a Classical Teacher on 22.12.1996 by the Managing Committee of Baunsuni Girls' High School, Baunsuni in the district of. Boudh. Pursuant to such order of appointment, she joined the said post on 22.12.1996; and since then she has been discharging her duties. After the School in question was notified to receive block grant from the State Government, the appointment of the petitioner was duly approved by the competent authority, vide office order dated 30.07.2008, against the post of Classical Teacher and consequentially, she was allowed to avail the block grant. As the petitioner acquired "Acharya" qualification on 10.11.2014, the District Education Officer, Boudh, vide office order No. 3999 dated 16.11.2015, allowed her to draw remuneration in the trained graduate scale of pay of Rs. 9300/- with grade pay of Rs. 4200/- with effect from 10.11.2014 and subsequently, her pay was also revised with effect from 01.01.2018 in terms of the GIA (Grant-in-Aid) Order, 2017. But all on a sudden, the District Education Officer, Boudh, vide order dated 07.02.2019, withdrew the remuneration of pay of Rs. 9300/- + Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- on the ground that the same had been allowed inadvertently to her, and directed for recovery of excess financial benefit already paid to her from the month of February, 2019. Hence this application. 3. Mr. K. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner empathically contended that while passing the order impugned dated 07.02.2019 no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Hence this application. 3. Mr. K. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner empathically contended that while passing the order impugned dated 07.02.2019 no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Thereby, with gross violation of principle of natural justice the benefit, which had been granted to the petitioner, has been withdrawn with a direction for recovery of amount already paid to her from the Month of February, 2019. It is further contended that no order affecting the employees financially should be made behind back of them. The employees suffering civil consequences are entitled to notice and a hearing as a part of fair play in the action. But, without applying such principle, the order impugned has been passed. Therefore, he seeks for interference of this Court. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in State of Punjab v. The Senior Vocational Staff masters Association, 2017 (II) OLR (SC) 503. 4. Mr. B. Satpathy, learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department contended that the benefit has been extended to the petitioner pursuant to resolution dated 05.09.2011 in Annexure-6, wherein it has been contended that the Classical Teachers possessing "Acharya" or "Sahitya Acharya" or "M.A. in Sanskrit" or its equivalent degree from a recognized University is entitled to get the scale of pay at par with the Trained Graduate Teachers. But subsequently, another resolution has been passed by the Government of Odisha, Department of School & Mass Education, vide resolution No. 23399 dated 27.10.2014, followed by a clarification vide letter No. 19866/SME dated 29.09.2016 to the effect that the untrained Regular Sanskrit Teachers acquiring M.A. or "Acharya" qualification after 27.10.2014 shall not be entitled to the benefit at par with Trained Graduate Teaches as per Resolution No. 17542 dated 05.09.2011. Therefore, the petitioner having acquired "Acharya." qualification on 10.11.2014, after the cut off date, he is not eligible to get the benefit of resolution dated 05.09.2011. Therefore, the benefit, which had been extended to him, has rightly been withdrawn by the authority concerned. 5. This Court heard Mr. K. Swain, learned counsel for the, petitioner and Mr. R. Satpathy, learned Standing Counsel [or School and Mass Education Department, and perused the record. Therefore, the benefit, which had been extended to him, has rightly been withdrawn by the authority concerned. 5. This Court heard Mr. K. Swain, learned counsel for the, petitioner and Mr. R. Satpathy, learned Standing Counsel [or School and Mass Education Department, and perused the record. Pleadings having; been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 6. On the basis of the admitted fact mentioned above, the petitioner having acquired 'Acharya' qualification on 10.11.2014 the benefit of trained graduate scale of pay was extended to her in view of the resolution dated 05.09.2011 under Annexure-6. On perusal of the said resolution, it reveals that common qualification was introduced for Classical (Sanskrit) Teacher fur all categories of High Schools (Government, Fully Aided, Block Grant and Recognized). As per Clause-8 of the Resolution dated 05.09.2011, the minimum educational qualification for the post of Classical (Sanskrit) Teacher for all categories of High Schools is as follows: "Achar a (except Yotischarya and Ayurvedacharya) or Sahityacharya or M.A. in Sanskrit or it's equivalent Degree from a recognized University/Institution/" OR "A Bachelor's Degree with Sanskrit as one of the optional subjects from a recognized University with Shikshya Shastri (Sanskrit) from a recognized University or Shastri (Sanskrit) with Shikshya Shastri (Sanskrit) from a recognized University." Clause-8(v) further provides that consequent upon fixation of revised common qualification for the post of Classical (Sanskrit) Teachers, the Classical (Sanskrit) Teacherss continuing at present with lesser qualification in different Government, Fully Aided and Block Grant High Schools shall continue as usual against such upgraded post with their own scale of pay till retirement/resignation/death/acquisition of the aforementioned common qualification or otherwise. Clause-8(vi) also provides that the Classical (Sanskrit) Teachers continuing in different categories of High Schools, i.e. Government. Fully Aided and Block Grant High Schools of the State, may undergo training course "Shikshya Shastri" or courses like "Acharya or Sahityacharya or M.A. in Sanskrit or its equivalent" at his/her own cost availing leave as due and admissible as per Rules. 7. Clause-8(vi) also provides that the Classical (Sanskrit) Teachers continuing in different categories of High Schools, i.e. Government. Fully Aided and Block Grant High Schools of the State, may undergo training course "Shikshya Shastri" or courses like "Acharya or Sahityacharya or M.A. in Sanskrit or its equivalent" at his/her own cost availing leave as due and admissible as per Rules. 7. A bare perusal of Clause-8(i), (v) and (vi) of resolution dated 05.09.2011, would reveal that Classical Teachers (Sanskrit), who were appointed prior to the issuance of resolution dated 05.09.2011, if they are not in possession of revised common qualification as provided in the aforesaid resolution, they shall continue in that post with their own scale of pay till they acquire the common revised qualification. As per Clause-8(vi) of the resolution dated 05.09.2011, an in-service Classical Teacher can undergo training course like "Shikshya Shastri" or "Achaya" after availing leave as due and admissible as per Rules on his/her own cost. In view of the aforesaid resolution dated 05.09.2011, the District Education Officer, Boudh granted no objection certificate to the petitioner to appear in M.A. Examination as a private candidate at her own cost, which is evident from Annexure-7 series. Consequentially, the petitioner acquired M.A. qualification In "Acharya" (Sanskrit), equivalent to M.A. with effect from 10.11.2014. The petitioner, having acquired the qualification In compliance of the resolution dated 05.09.2011, was granted the Trained Graduate scale of pay, i.e. Rs. 9,300-Rs. 34,800/- with grade pay of Rs. 4200/- pursuant to order dated 16.11.2015 passed by the District Education Officer, Boudh under Annexure 3. 8. The State Government in School and Mass Education Department issued resolution No. 23399 dated 27.10.2014, wherein it had introduced the same common qualification for the post of Classical (Sanskrit) Teacher, which was earlier prescribed in the Government Resolution dated 05.09.2011, but only enhanced the minimum marks up to 50% for qualifying examination. This was only change in the resolution dated 27.10.2014 in Annexure-9. But the petitioner has possessed more than 50%) marks in "Acharya Examination (Sanskrit)" equivalent to M.A. examination and the resolution dated 27.10.2014 introducing common qualification for the Classical Teacher will operate prospectively in case of Classical Teachers, who have been recruited/appointed after 27.10.2014 and not prior to that. This was only change in the resolution dated 27.10.2014 in Annexure-9. But the petitioner has possessed more than 50%) marks in "Acharya Examination (Sanskrit)" equivalent to M.A. examination and the resolution dated 27.10.2014 introducing common qualification for the Classical Teacher will operate prospectively in case of Classical Teachers, who have been recruited/appointed after 27.10.2014 and not prior to that. Applying the said resolution dated 27.10.2014, the Government In its School and Mass Education Department issued another resolution dated 29.09.2016 under Annexure-B, wherein it was provided that Classical Teachers who are in possession of common qualification after 27.10.2014 shall not be entitled to the benefit at par with Trained Graduate Teacher, as per resolution dated 05.09.2011. Fact remains, prior to the issuance of such clarificatory order of the Government dated 29.09.2016, the petitioner had already availed Trained Graduate scale of pay, i.e. Rs. 9,300-34,800/- with grade pay of Rs. 4200/- with effect from 10.11.2014, i.e. from the date of acquisition of the revised common qualification of "Acharya (Sanskrit)", equivalent to M.A. Therefore, the Government circular dated 29.06.2016 if at all is applicable, it should be prospective and not retrospective. But relying upon such circular, the benefit which had been granted to the petitioner, has been withdrawn by the District Education Officer with a direction for recovery of excess amount vide impugned order dated 07.02.2019. 9. By extending the benefit to the petitioner, pursuant to letter dated 16.11.2015 in Annexure-3, a right has already been accrued in her favour arid withdrawal of such benefit pursuant to Annexure 5 dated 07.02.2019 without complying the principle of natural justice, cannot sustain in the eye of law. 10. The reasons which have been assigned in paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit are not borne out in the order impugned dated 07.02.2019, and as such, the subsequent explanation given in the counter affidavit, whereby the District Education Officer, Boudh has clarified the position, cannot be taken into consideration. As such, the opposite parties are precluded from supplementing or supplanting any other reasons bereft of reasons available in the order impugned by way of filing counter affidavit, in view of law laid down by the apex Court In Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 , which has been followed In subsequent judgment In Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 4 SCC 144 . But fact remains, while passing the order impugned dated 07.02.2019 in Annexure-5, the opposite parties could have complied with the principles of natural justice because the sale of natural justice is 'fair play in action'. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 ; the apex Court held that natural justice, another name of which is common sense justice, is the name of those principles which constitute the minimum requirement of justice and without adherence to which justice would be a travesty. Natural justice accordingly stands for that fundamental quality of fairness which being adopted, justice may not only be done but also appears to be done. In Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 818 , the meaning of 'natural justice' came for consideration before the apex Court and the apex Court observed as follows: "The phrase is not capable of a static and precise definition. It cannot be imprisoned in the straight-jacket of a cast-iron formula. Historically, "natural justice" has been used in a way "which implies the existence of moral principles of self evident and unarguable truth". "Natural justice" by Paul Jackson, 2nd Ed., page-l. In course of time, judges nurtured in the traditions of British jurisprudence, often invoked it in conjunction with a reference to "equity and good conscience". Legal experts of earlier generations did not draw any distinction between "natural justice" and "natural law". "Natural justice" was considered as "that part of natural law which relates to the administration of justice." In Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 16 SCC 276 , the apex Court held as follows: "The rule of law demands that the power to determine questions affecting rights of citizens would impose the limitation that the power should be exercised in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Thus, whenever a man's rights are affected by decisions taken under statutory powers, the court would presume the existence of a duty to observe the rules of natural justice. It is important to note in this context the normal rule that whenever it is necessary to ensure against the failure of justice, the principles of natural justice must be read into a provision. It is important to note in this context the normal rule that whenever it is necessary to ensure against the failure of justice, the principles of natural justice must be read into a provision. Such a course is not permissible-where the rule excludes expressly or by necessary intendment,' the application of the principles of natural justice, but in that event, the validity of that rule may fall for consideration." 11. In Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association (supra), as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, the apex Court held that no such order, which affects the employees financially, should be made behind the back of them. Employees suffering civil consequences are entitled to notice and a hearing as a part of fair play in the action. Such view has also been taken in Bhagwan Shukla vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 2480 , wherein it was held as under: "3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. That the petitioner's basic pay had been fixed since 1970 at Rs. 190 p.m. is not disputed. There is also no dispute that the basic pay of the appellant was reduced to Rs. 781 p.m. from Rs. 190 pan in 7997 retrospectively w.e.f. 18.12.1970. The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. He was not, even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the order came to be made behind his back without following any procedure known to law. There, has, thus, been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial, loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. Since, that was not done, the order (memorandum) dated 25.7.1997 which was impugned before the Tribunal could not certainly be sustained and the Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the appellant. The order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. Since, that was not done, the order (memorandum) dated 25.7.1997 which was impugned before the Tribunal could not certainly be sustained and the Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the appellant. The order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 7.9.1993 as well as the order (memorandum) impugned before the Tribunal dated 25.7.1991 reducing the basic pay of the appellant From Rs. 190 to Rs. 181 w.e.f. 18.12.1970." 12. Considering from other angel, Classical Teachers and Hindi Teachers Working in Aided Educational Institutions are being granted trained graduate scale of pay on attaining the age or 48 years, III View or the provisions contained under Sub-rule (2) or Rule-16 of Odisha Education (Recruitment and Condition of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974, in the light or the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge or this Court in Radharani Sarnal v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2017 (1) ILR-CUT-546. In that case, the petitioner, who passed "B.A.-Rathna" and worked as a Hindi Teacher in a Block Grant High School, claimed for trained graduate scale of pay on attaining the age of 48 years and this Court held that since the petitioner possessed the revised common qualification, i.e., requisite qualification at par with trained graduate teachers and similarly situated employees have already received the said benefit, she is entitled to receive trained graduate scale of pay and accordingly direction was given to the authority to fix the scale of pay of the petitioner in the trained graduate scale when she attained the age of 48 years. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 176 or 2017 by the Government in School and Mass Education Department. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 176 or 2017 by the Government in School and Mass Education Department. But it has been brought to the notice or this Court that the Division Bench vide order of the date (30.04.2019), dismissed the said writ appeal observing that the Government Resolution, disentitling the petitioner therein to get the benefit of trained graduate scale of pay, cannot override the Rules as it violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and further held that the petitioner in that case is entitled to get trained graduate scale of pay on attaining the age of 48 years as per Rule 16(2) of the Rules, 1974. 13. In View of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, once a right has been accrued in favour of the petitioner to get trained graduate scale of pay, which was in fact granted to her, subsequently, the said accrued right cannot be taken away. Therefore, the entire action taken by the authority concerned is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions or PW, thereby violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 14. In view or the fact arid law discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 07.02.2019. In Annexure-5 with the benefits granted to the petitioner and direction for recovery of excess financial benefit from her salary with effect from February, 2019 cannot sustain in the eye of law. Accordingly, the same is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. 15. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.