JUDGMENT : 1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in all these writ petitions, therefore they are clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In this batch of writ petitioners, petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order (Annexure P/1) by which regular pay-scale granted to them with effect from the date of their initial appointment has been withdrawn. 3. Petitioners are working in the post of Teacher in Municipal Corporation, Raipur and on 15.09.1993/21.09.1993 their services were regularized on the pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2640/ plus additional allowances. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners as per Circular dated 05/01/2011 as to why they are entitled for regular pay-scale from the date of their initial appointment and why their regular pay-scale may not be withdrawn, to which the petitioners replied but by the impugned order (Annexure P/1), the Municipal Corporation withdrew regular pay-scale granted to the petitioners holding that in accordance with the Circular dated 05/01/2011, petitioners are not entitled for regular pay-scale as in their appointment orders, probation period of two years has not been mentioned and also directed for recovery of the amount already paid to the petitioners. 4. Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha and Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that Municipal Corporation has only considered the Circular dated 05/01/2011 and held that since petitioners were not appointed prior to 1992 and after 1995 and in their appointment orders, probation period of two years has not been mentioned, therefore, they are not entitled for regular pay-scale from the date of their initial appointment. They would also submit that omission of probation period is only a clerical mistake and the petitioners could not be made to suffer for that, as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 5. Mr. Ravi Bhagat, learned State counsel and Mr. Kashif Shakeel, learned counsel appearing for Municipal Corporation, would support the impugned order and submit that grant of regular pay-scale to the petitioners has rightly been withdrawn by the Municipal Corporation. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records. 7. 5. Mr. Ravi Bhagat, learned State counsel and Mr. Kashif Shakeel, learned counsel appearing for Municipal Corporation, would support the impugned order and submit that grant of regular pay-scale to the petitioners has rightly been withdrawn by the Municipal Corporation. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records. 7. It is not in dispute that by order dated 04/05/2011, petitioners were granted the benefit of regular pay-scale from the date of their initial appointment and it is also not in dispute that it has been withdrawn by the impugned order (Annexure P/1) holding that in accordance with Circular dated 05/01/2011 the petitioners were not appointed prior to 1992 and after 1995 and in their appointment orders, there is no mention of probation period of two years. However, the Municipal Corporation omitted to consider the Circular dated 21/06/2007 in which it has clearly been held that teachers appointed between 1982-83 to 1994-95 are entitled for arrears of regular pay-scale from the date of their appointment. This fact has neither been considered in the show cause notice nor it has been mentioned in the impugned order. Furthermore, the impugned order simply states that the period of probation has not been mentioned in the appointment order of the petitioners, but no such finding has been recorded by the Municipal Corporation that probation period of two years has not been completed by the petitioners. The petitioners have been working for about 2025 years and merely non-mentioning of probation period in their appointment orders cannot deprive them of the benefits which they are otherwise entitled to. Thus, in light of the aforesaid fact that Circular dated 04/05/2011 has not been considered by the Municipal Corporation and since the finding recorded by the Municipal Corporation that probation period has not been mentioned in the appointment orders of the petitioners requires fresh consideration, in that view of the matter, the impugned order (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. Matter is remitted to the Municipal Corporation to consider the case of the petitioners afresh in accordance with law after noticing and hearing the petitioners and decide it by passing a reasoned and speaking order within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioners are at liberty to make additional submission in support of their case within three weeks from today. 8. Petitioners are at liberty to make additional submission in support of their case within three weeks from today. 8. With the aforesaid direction, these writ petitions stand disposed of. No cost(s).