JUDGMENT : ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J. 1. These three appeals are being taken up for hearing together as they involve identical questions of law and similar factual issues. The writ petitioners were appointed to the posts of “Laboratory Assistant in Government + 2 Schools” in the erstwhile State of Bihar on the recommendation of Vidyalaya Sewa Board, Patna, Bihar. They were appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600/- along with admissible allowances. They had joined different schools in the State of Bihar before bifurcation of the State. The same pay scale was revised by the 5th Pay revision commission and they were lifted to the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-. 2. After coming into operation of Bihar Re-Organisation Act, 2000, the writ petitioners were allotted the State of Jharkhand in Cadre Division Order issued by the Government of India on 3rd March 2006. In such division, admitted position is that their scale has been shown as Rs. 5000-8000/-. The writ petitioners were considered for Assured Career Progression (ACP in short) benefit after completing 12 years of continuation of service by the Screening Committee. In the meeting of the Screening Committee held on 31st July 2015 and on their recommendations, they were granted benefits of ACP with effect from the date on which they completed 12 years of continuous service and an order to that effect was passed on 21st August, 2015. That placed the writ petitioners in the scale of pay of Rs. 5500-Rs.9000. This order was sought to be revoked by the Director, Secondary Education & Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand by an office order bearing memo No. 6/Wa-25/2006-3214 dated 23rd November, 2015. This memorandum seeks to cancel the earlier memorandum granting them ACP benefits to the writ petitioners with effect from 21st August, 2015. This cancellation memorandum dated 23rd November, 2015 was assailed in the three writ petitions. The learned First Court allowed the said writ petitions by three judgments delivered on 1st September, 2017. In the judgment delivered in W.P.(S) No. 5970 of 2015, it was inter-alia, observed and held:- “Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioners need consideration. In the judgment delivered in W.P.(S) No. 5970 of 2015, it was inter-alia, observed and held:- “Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioners need consideration. The order dated 23.11.2015 is illegal and arbitrary on the following grounds:- I. The said order has been issued without following the principles of natural justice and before passing the order of recovery, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners, if any opportunity would have been given they would be in possession to satisfy the respondents regarding the non-applicability of said circular. II. No reasons have been assigned in the impugned order. Reasons cannot be supplemented by way of counter-affidavit, the said proposition of law has been held in case of Commissioner of Police Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 , which has been reiterated in case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. the Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. reported in 1978 Volume 1 SCC, 405. III. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners were granted the pay-scale in the erstwhile State of Bihar. After bifurcation and cadre division, the petitioners joined the State of Jharkhand with the same pay-scale in view of the Bihar Reorganization Act, Section 73 (1) which reads as follows:- “Nothing in Section 72 shall be deemed to affect on or after the appointed day the operation of the provisions of Chapter I of Part XIV of the Constitution in relation to determination of the conditions of service of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Union or any State. Provided that the conditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed day in the case of any person deemed to have been allocated to the State of Bihar or to the State of Jharkhand under Section 72 shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government. IV. The letter dated 01.09.2000 was issued by the Govt. of Bihar in entirely different context, the same is not applicable also in the petitioners' case. It has nothing to do with the reduction of the petitioners' scale which has been granted on the revised pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600/- and as such the petitioners are entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/-. of Bihar in entirely different context, the same is not applicable also in the petitioners' case. It has nothing to do with the reduction of the petitioners' scale which has been granted on the revised pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600/- and as such the petitioners are entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/-. No misrepresentation has ever been made by the petitioners for getting the same pay scale as they were entitled in accordance with law and in view of the benefits of ACP. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, rules, observations and guidelines, I hereby quash and set aside the order dated 23.11.2015 which is at Annexure-8 to the writ petition. As the petitioners are entitled for the benefits of ACP and the Scale of Rs. 5500-9000/-, no recovery shall be made from the pay scale rightly given to the petitioners. Recovery made, if any, may be refunded to the petitioners. Resultantly, this writ petition stands allowed.” W.P.(S) No. 118 of 2016 and W.P.(S) No. 452 of 2016 were allowed in the same terms on the same day. 3. On behalf of the writ petitioners it has been submitted that in the State of Bihar the similarly situated persons were getting the same benefits and that has not been contradicted before us. 4. Mr. D.K. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the State has argued that in the event an order or memorandum is invalidated by the Court on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice, then the course to be adopted by the Court would be to remand the matter to the authorities to enable them to take a fresh decision. His submission is that if an order is set aside on that ground alone, the authorities’ power to re-determine the matter upon giving opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved parties ought not to be foreclosed. 5. In the judgments under appeals, however, we find that though one of the reasons for quashing the order dated 23rd November 2015 is violation of the principles of natural Justice, the said memorandum has been examined on merit also. On merit, it was found by the learned First Court that under the provisions of section 73(1) of the 2000 Act, the course sought to be undertaken by the State was impermissible. On merit, it was found by the learned First Court that under the provisions of section 73(1) of the 2000 Act, the course sought to be undertaken by the State was impermissible. In the part of the judgment quoted above, the aforesaid provision of the 2000 Act has been reproduced. Thus the learned First Court in all the three writ petitions has addressed the issue on merit also. As regards Section 73(1) of the 2000 Act, Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the State has not advanced any submission on its inapplicability. There is specific finding that no misrepresentation had ever been made by the writ petitioners for getting the said pay scale. No other error in fixing the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- has also been pointed in course of hearing by Mr. Dubey. 6. We are also apprised that the three judgments of the learned First Court under appeal before us have already been given effect to and the benefits have been granted to the writ petitioners. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgments under appeals. 7. Accordingly all the three appeals stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The connected applications (I.A. No. 3541 of 2018, I.A. No. 4253 of 2018 and I.A. No. 4306 of 2018) shall also stand disposed of.