JUDGMENT : MADHURESH PRASAD, J. 1. The matter has been listed today for consideration through Video Conferencing. 2. Learned counsels are appearing and making submissions from their residence. The Court Master and Secretary are also part of this virtual court proceedings from their homes, all with the aid of audio visual technology. 3. Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey AAG XV for the State. 4. The petitioners’ claim in the writ proceedings is for quashing of memo no. 645 dated 05.05.2020 issued by the District Education Officer, Aurangabad recalling the senior scale granted to the Teachers appointed after 31.12.1995. Basis of the said decision is the letter issued by the Director (Primary Education) to all the District Education Officer under memo No. 20.04.2020 bearing no. 432. The same is also challenged in the instant proceedings. 5. Over the past several dates, parties have argued at length. In today’s proceedings, however, they have found common ground. The stand taken by Mr. Pandey, counsel for the State, was that the petitioners were appointed against Matric Trained Teacher posts having the higher qualification of Intermediate or Graduation etc. Their appointment, however, was without training, which petitioners have acquired subsequently on different dates. He further submits upon instructions that on completing 12 years from the date of acquiring training petitioners would be entitled to the next higher scale of pay, and consequential payments. 6. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel has drawn attention of the Court towards the chart containing the date of completion of teachers training in respect of all the petitioner which is contained at Annexure R/3. He submits that in view of the submissions of the State Counsel regarding entitlement of the petitioners to next higher scale 12 years after acquiring the qualification of training, the petitioners, now would anyway be entitled to the next higher scale as they have completed 12 years service subsequent to the date on which they acquired training. Petitioners are agreeable to avail such benefits, he, therefore, does not wish to press the instant writ proceedings in respect of the relief for quashing of the memo dated 05.05.2020 or 20.04.2020, impugned in the instant writ proceedings. 7. Petitioners are agreeable to avail such benefits, he, therefore, does not wish to press the instant writ proceedings in respect of the relief for quashing of the memo dated 05.05.2020 or 20.04.2020, impugned in the instant writ proceedings. 7. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the situation that emerges is that petitioners and State are in agreement that the petitioners will receive the next higher scale with effect from the date they have completed, or shall complete 12 years service, post acquisition of training. To this extent, there is no dispute and, therefore, in terms of this consensus between the parties entitlement of the petitioners for grant of next higher scale/senior scale is resolved and the authorities, consequently, would be under an obligation to work out entitlement of the petitioners as per details in respect of the date of acquisition of training contained in Annexure R/3 to the rejoinder filed by the petitioners, and consequential payment of dues that may be found admissible. 8. The dispute is only whether the financial benefits of senior scale which has been granted in terms of the earlier Finance Department Resolution dated 18.12.1989 bearing Resolution No. 6022, which was not applicable to the petitioners, can be recovered from the petitioners, or not. 9. Mr. Giri submits that for some periods the petitioners were granted the senior scale under the office order dated 17.05.2019 issued by the District Programme Officer (Establishment) Aurangabad (Annexure-8). The said grant was without any misrepresentation or fraud by the petitioners and, therefore, the recovery of amounts paid pursuant to Annexure-8, would burden the petitioners for no fault on their part. It is also submitted that petitioners have not been afforded any opportunity of hearing before the recovery was made under office order dated 30.04.2020 issued by the District Education Officer, Aurangabad. He, thus, submits that the recovery made under the office order dated 30.04.2020 is grossly illegal and unsustainable. 10. For refund of the amounts that has already been recovered under order dated 30.04.2020, the petitioners have filed I.A. No. 1 of 2020. Submissions have been advanced by the learned senior counsel in support of the relief of refund prayed for in the I.A. No. 1 of 2020. 11. Learned senior counsel Mr. Giri submits that even after this Court had passed orders on 29.05.2020 restraining further recoveries from the petitioners, the State authorities have made recoveries from the petitioners. Submissions have been advanced by the learned senior counsel in support of the relief of refund prayed for in the I.A. No. 1 of 2020. 11. Learned senior counsel Mr. Giri submits that even after this Court had passed orders on 29.05.2020 restraining further recoveries from the petitioners, the State authorities have made recoveries from the petitioners. As per the petitioner’s claim recoveries have been made to the tune of more than 95% amount from the salary for the months of April and May, 2020. Some part of the said amount of 95% has been recovered on 29.05.2020 itself on which date this Court had passed orders restraining further recoveries. 12. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the petitioners, has drawn the attention of the Court towards Annexure-9, dated 20.04.2020/27.04.2020. He submits that this is the communication from the Director (Primary Education) which forms the basis of withdrawal of grant of senior scale; as well as the recovery effected by the impugned order dated 30.04.2020/05.05.2020 (Annexure-10). Apparently, the Director was conscious of the fact that grant of senior scale under Finance Department Resolution No. 6022 dated 18.12.1989, was not on account of any fraud or misrepresentation played by the petitioners and that they could not be burdened with recoveries, on account of rectification of the fault, for which, they were, in no manner, responsible. Mistake, if any, was committed by the State Authorities, namely, District Programme Officer, who had issued office order dated 17.05.2019 (Annexure-8). 13. In this connection, he has referred to the decision of the Director (Primary Education) dated 20.4.2020 (Annexure-9). It is submitted that by this decision the mistake was sought to be rectified. Even this decision of the Director does not contemplate any recoveries. Relevant extract relied upon reads as follows: ^^;gka ;g Hkh vaduh; gS fd mDr dksfV ds f'k{kdksa dks iwoZ esa eSfVªd Áf'kf{kr dk ojh; osrueku Lohd`r gS vkSj mDr vkns'k esa eSfVªd Áf'kf{kr dk ojh; osrueku ds frfFk esa la'kks/ku visf{kr gSA bl Øe esa ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd la'kks/ku vkns'k laxr fu;ekoyh ds fu;e&13 ds vkyksd esa ftyk dk;ZØe inkf/kdkjh ¼LFkkiuk½ ,oa ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh ds la;qDr gLrk{kj ls fuxZr fd;k tk ldrk gSA** 14. The submissions are based on decision of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2009) 3 SCC 475 . The submissions are based on decision of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2009) 3 SCC 475 . He has relied upon the paragraphs 57, 58 and 59, which reads as follows:- “57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if 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. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana, Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India, Union of India vs. M. Bhaskar, V. Ganga Ram vs. Director, Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) vs. Govt. of India, Purshottam Lal Das vs. State of Bihar, Punjab National Bank vs. Manjeet Singh and Bihar SEB vs. Bijay Bahadur. 59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellants -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. 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 appellants-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 appellants-teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellants-teachers should be made.” 15. He has also relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nand Kishore Sharma and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 722. This Court would consider it useful to reproduce relevant portion of paragraph no. 2 of the said judgment relied upon by the petitioners: “........We agree with the High court that unless there was an order of the Government sanctioning and granting revised pay scales to the appellants, they were not entitled to claim the same. But at the same time, we are of the view that the appellants cannot be blamed. The Anomaly Committee recommended grant of higher pay scales to them. The Finance Department also concurred with the same and as a result thereafter the appellants were given the pay scales and were disbursed the arrears as a lump sum. Having paid the arrears to the appellants, the State Government could not have reversed the same specially without complying with the rules of natural justice. It is not disputed that no opportunity was afforded to the appellants before passing the order of recovery. We, therefore, grant limited relief to the appellants to the extent that we quash the order directing recovery of the amount paid to the appellants in the year 1981. The State Government shall not effect recovery of the arrears in the revised pay scale for the period from 1.1.1976 to 1.1.1981. We, therefore, grant limited relief to the appellants to the extent that we quash the order directing recovery of the amount paid to the appellants in the year 1981. The State Government shall not effect recovery of the arrears in the revised pay scale for the period from 1.1.1976 to 1.1.1981. We, however, agree with the high court that the appellants were not entitled to the revised pay scaled and as such we hold that it was rightly withdrawn from them.” 16. He has also relied upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 . 17. In support of the recovery, and opposing the prayer for refund State Counsel Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey has submitted that since the petitioners were not legally entitled to grant of senior scale under the Finance Department Resolution bearing No. 6022 dated 18.12.1989 payments made thereunder have rightly been recovered. 18. The AAG XV, Mr. Pandey submits that Clause 3 of Annexure-8, by which, the senior scale was granted itself contemplated that the grant was subject to verification of entitlement and with a clear stipulation that if it was found otherwise that any of the beneficiaries (petitioners) was not entitled to grant of the same, the Authorities would be at liberty to recover the same. This Court would consider it useful to reproduce Clause 3 of the office order dated 17.05.2019 (Annexure-8) which reads as follows:- ^^fdlh Hkh f'k{kd ds lanHkZ esa Áfrdwy fLFkfr ik;s tkus ij foHkkx@dk;kZy; vR;f/kd Hkqxrs; jkf'k dh olwyh gsrq Lora= gksxkA** 19. Mr. Pandey, has relied upon on a decision of the Apex court in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others vs. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267 . The paragraphs, on which, the State counsel places reliance are being reproduced: 10. In State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) 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: (SCC pp. 334-335) “(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group ‘D’ service). 334-335) “(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. 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.” 20. This Court has to consider the prayer of the petitioners made in Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2020, keeping in background judgments of the Apex Court relied upon by the parties, and the fact that parties today are in agreement that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the next higher scale, from a date 12 years after acquiring training. In other words, after completing 12 years of service as Matric trained teachers. It is agreed that entitlement of the petitioners has to be accordingly worked out by the State Authorities and payments found due and admissible are to be paid. The entitlement is to be worked out, as per the dates of acquisition of training contained in Annexure-R/3. 21. In other words, after completing 12 years of service as Matric trained teachers. It is agreed that entitlement of the petitioners has to be accordingly worked out by the State Authorities and payments found due and admissible are to be paid. The entitlement is to be worked out, as per the dates of acquisition of training contained in Annexure-R/3. 21. Once the entitlement is worked out by the State Authorities, it is possible that some of the petitioners, may be entitled to payments, which may, or may not be equal to what has already been paid to them under the order dated 17.05.2019 (Annexure-8). 22. Some of the petitioners may not be entitled to and/or paid amounts as much as the amount that had been paid pursuant to the earlier order of the District Programme Officer, dated 17.05.2019. They may have an actual entitlement less than what they have received pursuant to the order dated 17.05.2019. In such circumstance, some recovery may be necessitated from these petitioners limited to the excess amount that may have been paid under the order dated 17.05.2019. 23. The order dated 17.05.2019, under which, the excess payments were made to the petitioners, clearly stipulated recovery, in case it was found to have been paid in excess of entitlement of the respective petitioners. Petitioners, therefore, had been put on notice regarding the Authorities retaining their right to make recoveries in these circumstances. 24. The Authorities, within a short span of less than one year from undue grant of higher scale under order dated 17.05.2019, have realized that the payments were in excess of the entitlement. Accordingly, the order for recovery dated 30.04.2020 was issued. The time lapse between grant of undue/excess benefits and the order rectifying the same is less than even one year. It is also not the case of the petitioners that they have been made to discharge the duties of teachers (senior scale), of any higher post. 25. Further it is relevant to note that petitioners are still in service. It is not the case of any of the petitioners that they are on the verge of retirement or that any of them have retired. 26. The factual circumstances therefore do not even suggest that recovery would in any way be iniquitous, arbitrary or harsh. 25. Further it is relevant to note that petitioners are still in service. It is not the case of any of the petitioners that they are on the verge of retirement or that any of them have retired. 26. The factual circumstances therefore do not even suggest that recovery would in any way be iniquitous, arbitrary or harsh. The five situations contemplated in judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) i.e. the judgment relied upon by petitioners under which, recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law, factually does not exist in the instant case. 27. This Court would also take note of the fact that the admitted case of the petitioners is that substantial amounts paid in excess of entitlement has already been recovered. In view of the consent regarding entitlement of the petitioners, being otherwise, a very small portion may now remain to be recovered. 28. There is a clear stipulation in the order of the District Program Officer (Establishment) Aurangabad, dated 17.05.2019 regarding payments being made, reserving the right to recover, if subsequently found to be undue. Petitioners have accepted payments on these terms without raising any objection to such terms, and infact have accepted the payments along with such conditions. This Court is of the opinion that facts of the instant case is fully covered by decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra), more specifically Para 11 and 12 of the said judgment, which has been reproduced above. 29. When the petitioners were granted senior scale under the order of the District Program officer (Establishment) Aurangabad, dated 17.05.2019, they were conscious that it was subject to recovery, if found to be in excess of entitlement. While accepting the senior scale, they had not raised any objection to such condition. In fact, by accepting such conditional payment. They had, by their conduct accepted the fact that it was subject to recovery. Petitioners, in the instant case, have also conceded in respect of entitlement to grant of next higher scale on completion of 12 years service as Matric Trained Teachers. Thus, they are conscious that payment of senior scale under order dated 17.05.2019 (Annexure-8) was undue. 30. They had, by their conduct accepted the fact that it was subject to recovery. Petitioners, in the instant case, have also conceded in respect of entitlement to grant of next higher scale on completion of 12 years service as Matric Trained Teachers. Thus, they are conscious that payment of senior scale under order dated 17.05.2019 (Annexure-8) was undue. 30. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioners have fairly not pressed the relief originally prayed in the writ petition for quashing of the memo dated 05.05.2020 issued by the District Education Officer, Aurangabad, recalling the senior scale granted to the petitioners as also letter of the Director (Primary Education), under memo dated 20.04.2020. 31. The fact that grant of senior scale to the petitioners was undue is not disputed. Legal implication thereof, including recovery also cannot be disputed by the petitioners, more so, in view of the fact that the order dated 17.05.2019 (Annexure-8), by which, senior scale was granted to the petitioners was accepted by the petitioners with a specific stipulation that in case grant was found to be undue, petitioners would be liable for recovery of the amounts paid. The fact that the petitioners were not entitled to the senior scale being admitted, the irresistible legal implication would be withdrawal of senior scale. This is the only conclusion possible in the circumstance. 32. If only one conclusion is possible a writ would not be issued only because there was a violation of principle of Natural justice. Such opportunity would be nothing short of an empty formality for arriving at the same conclusion. This Court is placing reliance on paragraph no. 17 of decision of the Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank vs. Manjeet Singh, (2006) 8 SCC 647 . The said judgment has also been relied upon by the Apex Court in the subsequent case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India and Others, (2007) 4 SCC 54 . The Apex Court has in the judgment of Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra) emphasized that audi alteram partem is one of the basic pillars of natural justice and no persons should be condemned unheard. Principle of natural justice have been placed on a very high pedestal by Courts repeatedly. The Apex Court has in the judgment of Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra) emphasized that audi alteram partem is one of the basic pillars of natural justice and no persons should be condemned unheard. Principle of natural justice have been placed on a very high pedestal by Courts repeatedly. At the same time, it has also been stated by the Apex Court in the judgment of Ashok Kumar Sonkar (Supra) that a court of law does not insist on compliance with a useless formality. Where the result of compliance with principle of natural justice would result in no change, and where no prejudice is shown to be caused by non-compliance with principle of natural justice, the same may also not be applied. The settled law that the principle of natural justice cannot be put in a straight jacket formula has been stated by the Apex Court in the judgment of Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra). 33. The law stated therein squarely covers the facts of the instant case, which have been taken note of hereinabove. Here also, the conclusion whether the senior scale granted to the petitioners, under order dated 17.05.2019, was to be withdrawn would remain the same, even if this Court were to issue a direction to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and comply with principle of natural justice. The fact that they can claim grant of next higher scale only after working for 12 years as Matric trained teacher is an admitted position. Fact that grant of senior scale was undue, now in these proceedings is an admitted and indisputable fact, which would remain the same irrespective of the fact that natural justice is complied or not complied. 34. It is, in such circumstances, apparently that the Apex Court in the case of Nand Kishore Sharma (supra) has not interfered with withdrawal of the revised pay scale inadvertently granted to the petitioners therein. 35. The Apex Court in the case of Nand Kishore Sharma (supra), however, has interfered with recovery of amounts paid in excess of entitlement to the petitioners therein due to withdrawal of the revised pay scale on account of a mistaken grant of the same by the Anomaly Committee. The excess payment in that case had been made on account of revised pay scale after prior concurrence even by the Finance Department. The excess payment in that case had been made on account of revised pay scale after prior concurrence even by the Finance Department. For five years (from 01.01.1976 to 01.01.1981) the petitioners therein had received the undue benefit of revised scale, granted by the pay Anomaly Committee under the concurrence of the Finance Department as has been taken note of in paragraph 2 of the judgment. 36. In the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) also the Apex Court has reiterated that grant of undue benefit for a period in excess of five years, before order of recovery is issued would be one of the relevant considerations, for holding recovery of excess amounts paid to be impermissible. In the instant case, however, we have seen that the excess payment has been made for less than a year, before the same was withdrawn and order of recovery was issued. Facts of the instant case, therefore, are distinguishable. 37. Considering the legal position arising from the judgment in the case of Nand Kishore Sharma (supra), Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra) as well as judgment in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) this Court would arrive at a conclusion that based on the distinguishable facts of the instant case, no case is made out for issuing a direction to refund the amounts already recovered. 38. This Court would also take note of the fact that in the instant case there is no issue of recovery. Substantial recovery has already been made even as per the case of the petitioners. It is, in these circumstances, that petitioners have made a prayer in I.A. No. 01 of 2020 for refund of the amounts already recovered. The various judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners are not in respect of refund of amounts recovered, but are on a different issue whether recovery is permissible or not. 39. So far as judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qudir and Others (supra) relied upon by the petitioners, this Court, having noticed the facts of the instant case, would find it a fit case to be covered by paragraph 58 of the said judgment in so far as it contemplates recovery of the amount paid in excess. 40. This Court, therefore, does not find any occasion to direct for refund of the excess payments already recovered from the petitioners. 40. This Court, therefore, does not find any occasion to direct for refund of the excess payments already recovered from the petitioners. I.A. No. 1 of 2020, accordingly, stands rejected. 41. Authorities, in terms of their own stand as expressed by the learned AAG regarding entitlement of the petitioners to next higher scale after 12 years service as Matric Trained (12 years from the date of acquisition of training as per Annexure R/3) are directed to calculate entitlement of the petitioners and to make payment of the amounts found due. 42. Both arrears and current due must be paid along with a statement showing calculation of the amounts found payable. This entire exercise must be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 43. Only after calculation and payment of entitlement of the petitioners, if the authorities find that any of the petitioners are still liable for recovery any amount, they would be at liberty to make such recovery in equated monthly instalments, spread over a reasonable period. 44. Writ Petition is disposed off in the aforesaid terms.