JUDGMENT : Akil Kureshi, J. The writ appeal and the writ petition are inter connected. They have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts are as under: The writ appeal arises out of a judgment dated 30th May, 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(C) No.379/2012. The appellants-original petitioners were appointed as Lower Division Assistant-cum-Typist in the General Administrative Department, Government of Tripura in the scale of pay of Rs.3300 – 7100/-. Upon completion of 10(ten) years of service without promotion, they were entitled to the benefit of CAS-1 in terms of Rule 10(d) of Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter to be referred to as ROP, 1999). Their pay was fixed in the next higher scale of Rs.4,000 - 7890/- by applying the provision of FR 22(I)(a)(i). 3. It appears that the said FR was amended by the Government of India under the notification dated 30th August, 1989. In order to align this fundamental rule with the amendments of Government of India, State of Tripura also issued a notification dated 3rd October, 1999 promulgating fundamental (Tripura Amendment) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter to be referred to as Amendment Rules, 1999). By these Rules FR 22(I) now had sub rule (a)(1) and (2). In order to align this fundamental rule with the amendments of Government of India, State of Tripura also issued a notification dated 3rd October, 1999 promulgating fundamental (Tripura Amendment) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter to be referred to as Amendment Rules, 1999). By these Rules FR 22(I) now had sub rule (a)(1) and (2). In the amended form FR 22(I) (a)(2) reads as under: “(2) When the appointment to the new post does not involve such assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance, he shall draw as initial pay, the stage of the time-scale which is equal to his in respect of the old post held by him on regular basis, of if there is no such stage, the stage next above his pay in respect of the old post held by him on regular basis; Provided that where the minimum pay of the time-scale of the new post is higher than his pay in respect of the post held by him regularly, he shall draw the minimum as the initial pay: Provided further that in a case where pay is fixed at the same stage, he shall continue to draw that pay until such time as he would have received an increment in that time-scale of the old post, in cases where pay is fixed at the higher stage; he shall get his next increment on completion of the period when an increment is earned in the time-scale of the new post. On appointment on regular basis to such a new post, other that to an ex-cadre post on deputation, the Government servant shall have the option, to be exercised within one month from the date of such appointment, for fixation of his pay in the new post with effect from the date of appointment to the new post or with effect from the date of increment in the old post.” 4. This Rule was given retrospective effect from 1.1.1996. It may be noted that ROP, 1999 under which pay and allowances to the employees of the State Government were revised, were brought into force with effect from 1.1.1996 also. 5. This Rule was given retrospective effect from 1.1.1996. It may be noted that ROP, 1999 under which pay and allowances to the employees of the State Government were revised, were brought into force with effect from 1.1.1996 also. 5. All the original petitioners upon completion of 10 years of service without promotion were granted the benefit of CAS-1 after 03.10.1999 but by applying the pre revised FRs and accordingly their pay was fixed, as noted earlier, in the next higher scale of Rs.4,000 - 7890/- from the existing scale of Rs.3300 - 7100/- in which till then they were drawing their pay and allowances. 6. Under the notification dated 24.03.2000 the Government of Tripura promulgated Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter to be referred to as ROP, 1999 Amendment Rules). Under these Rules it was provided that substituted FR 22(I) (a)(1) shall be applicable in cases of promotion for appointment to another post with higher or the same scale provided such posts carry duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attached to the post held by the employee before promotion. This Rule further provided that: “(c) The substituted provision of F.R 22(I) (a)(2) shall be applicable in cases of movement of higher/next higher pay scale under graded pay scale/CAS (Modified) and also in cases of appointment to another post(s) with same pay scale, provided such posts do not carry duties and responsibilities of greater importance, than those attached to the post held by him before appointment to new post as per Recruitment. Rules Date of Next Increment (DNI) alongwith the scope for exercising option shall be regulated as per provision of F.R 22(I)(a) (2).” The rules also provided that the same shall be deemed to have come into force from 01.01.1996. 7. On 24.06.2008 the Government promulgated Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) (Eighteenth Amendment) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Eighteenth Amendment of ROP, 1999). By these Rules, the amendments made in ROP, 1999 through Fifth Amendment rules were given retrospective effect from 01.01.1996. 8. On 28.03.2011, Government of Tripura, General Administration Department issued an order modifying the pay fixation of the petitioners pursuant to CAS-1 benefits. By these Rules, the amendments made in ROP, 1999 through Fifth Amendment rules were given retrospective effect from 01.01.1996. 8. On 28.03.2011, Government of Tripura, General Administration Department issued an order modifying the pay fixation of the petitioners pursuant to CAS-1 benefits. In other words, the pay fixation which was previously granted under original FRs was withdrawn and in substitution thereof fresh pay fixation was made taking recourse to the amended FR 22(I) and in particular Clause (a)(2). This was on the basis that the petitioners when they were given the benefit of CAS-1 were not posted on a post bearing higher duties or responsibilities compared to their current posts and, therefore, they were not entitled to the pay fixation in next higher scale. 9. The original petitioners challenged this order and similar orders which were passed against all of them. The learned Single Judge by the judgment dated 30.05.2016 which is impugned in the writ appeal came to the conclusion that: “[18] In the case in hand, there cannot be any dispute that by amendment by virtue of Fundamental (Tripura Amendment Rules) 1999, it has been clarified that which Fundamental Rules would be applicable in case of appointment without assumption of post or assumption of higher duties and responsibilities or appointment in the same pay scale and also in respect of promotion to the post of higher duties and responsibilities. That apart, the amendment rules in respect of F.R.22(a)(i), and F.R.22(c) are not challenged in this writ petition and the petitioners have only prayed for reading down those provisions. The court is constrained to observe that the grounds so assigned for reading down are not at all satisfactory for interference from this court, inasmuch as grounds for reading down should be of the similar standard of the grounds for challenging the vires of the rules. Such grounds are conspicuous only by absence in this petition. As such this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 28.03.2011(Annexure-P/5). But having regard to the fact that when the pay of the petitioners was fixed under CAS1, it was fixed under F.R.22(1)(a) having been in force and there was no misrepresentation from the petitioners, and in view of the decision of the apex court in State of Punjab and Others etc. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. But having regard to the fact that when the pay of the petitioners was fixed under CAS1, it was fixed under F.R.22(1)(a) having been in force and there was no misrepresentation from the petitioners, and in view of the decision of the apex court in State of Punjab and Others etc. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. reported in AIR 2015 SC 696 , the petitioners borne in the class-III category, cannot be pushed to hardship by way of recovery. The petitioners in view of the subsequent changes, have been accounted for excess drawal, but recovery cannot be permitted. In State of Punjab and Others etc. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. the apex court has observed as under: 12. 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. (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] [19] In view of this the impugned order dated 28.04.2012 (Annexure-P/11 to the writ petition), is interfered with and set aside. [20] In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed.” 10. The learned Single Judge thus did not accept the challenge of the petitioners to the modification of their pay fixations. [Emphasis supplied] [19] In view of this the impugned order dated 28.04.2012 (Annexure-P/11 to the writ petition), is interfered with and set aside. [20] In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed.” 10. The learned Single Judge thus did not accept the challenge of the petitioners to the modification of their pay fixations. This was on the ground that they had not challenged the amendments in FR 22(I) and FR 22C and there were no grounds for reading down these rules. However, with respect to the recoveries for the overpayments already made, the learned Judge was of the opinion that the same were not justified. This judgment the original petitioners have challenged in the writ appeal. 11. The facts of the petitioner of W.P(C) No.635 of 2017 are substantially similar. He has appointed as Lower Division Assistant cum Typist on 29.05.1990. Upon completion of 10 years of service without promotion he was granted the benefit of CAS-1 under Rule 10(d) of ROP, 1999 w.e.f 29.05.2000. His pay fixation was done in terms of FR 22(I) and his pay was fixed in the next higher scale of Rs.4,000 – 7890/-. In his case also taking recourse to the amendments in FR 22(I) and the amendments in Fifth and Eighteenth amendments in ROP, 1999 such pay fixation was altered to his disadvantage. The fresh pay fixation was made in terms of amended FR 22(I)(a)(2). He has challenged this modification in his pay fixation. He has also challenged the retrospectivity of the amendments made in FR 22(I) and ROP, 1999. 12. Appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel Sri Arijit Bhowmik submitted that the State of Tripura amended FR 22(I) as well as ROP, 1999 by giving retrospective effect. These amendments had the effect of taking away the petitioners' vested rights. As per settled law, through retrospective amendments the subordinate legislation cannot take away accrued or existing rights. In this context, he relied on the following decisions: (i) S.S. Bola and others Vrs. B. D. Sardana and others; reported in (1997) 8 SCC 522 ; (ii) Chairman, Railway Board and others Vrs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah and others ; reported in (1997) 6 SCC 623 ; 13. On the other hand, learned Government advocate resisted the writ appeal as well as writ petition contending that the Government of India itself had amended FR 22(I) and bifurcated the same into two parts. C.R. Rangadhamaiah and others ; reported in (1997) 6 SCC 623 ; 13. On the other hand, learned Government advocate resisted the writ appeal as well as writ petition contending that the Government of India itself had amended FR 22(I) and bifurcated the same into two parts. First part would apply to a case where a Government servant on promotion has been assigned a post carrying greater responsibility in which case his pay fixation would be on the higher scale. Second part would apply in a case where the Government servant is assigned duties not carrying greater responsibility than one is discharging and in which case pay fixation would be in terms of FR 22(I)(a)(2). The State of Tripura had therefore, issued notification making amendments in FR 22((I). The same was given effect from 1.1.1996 since ROP, 1999 were brought into effect from 1.1.1996. Consequential amendments were also made in ROP, 1999 through Fifth and Eighteenth amendments. Erroneously, fixations made in case of the petitioners resorting to the unamended FR 22, therefore, had to be corrected. 14. The documents on record would show that all the petitioners were granted benefit of CAS-1 in terms of Rule 10(d) of ROP, 1999 since after completion of 10 years of service they could not get any promotion. As per Rule 10(d) the employees of cadre service upon completion of 10 years would have scale advancement as prescribed which would be w.e.f. 01.01.1999. Clause -e of Rule 10 of ROP, 1999 further provided that in case of time bound advancement to higher scale, pay shall be fixed under FR 22(a)(i). We have noticed that to align the Fundamental Rule 22 with the Central amendments the State of Tripura also had promulgated amendment Rules of 1999 in which under FR 22 (I)(a)(2) at the time of appointment of the new post which does not involve assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance, the employee could draw as initial pay the stage of the time scale which is equal to the stage of the old post held by him on regular basis. This amendment was given effect from 01.01.1996. Accordingly, when all the petitioners were granted the benefit of CAS-1 without actual promotion and therefore, were not assigned any duties or responsibilities higher than what they are already carrying, their pay fixation had to be made having regard to FR 22(I)(a)(2). 15. This amendment was given effect from 01.01.1996. Accordingly, when all the petitioners were granted the benefit of CAS-1 without actual promotion and therefore, were not assigned any duties or responsibilities higher than what they are already carrying, their pay fixation had to be made having regard to FR 22(I)(a)(2). 15. The State Government also made necessary corresponding changes in ROP, 1999 by first promulgating the ROP, 1999, Fifth Amendment Rules clarifying that the substituted provision of FR 22(I)(a)(2) shall be applicable in cases of movement to higher or next scale under the grade pay or CAS provided such post do not carry duties and responsibilities of greater importance and those attached to the post held by the employee before appointment to a new post. Thus in case of CAS benefit, pay fixation of the employee would be carried out in terms of FR 22(I)(a)(2) as per these amendments. This Fifth Amendment Rule of ROP, 1999 carried a clause that the same shall be deemed to have come into force w.e.f 01.01.1996. The restrospectivity of this Rule was thus inbuilt in the Fifth Amendment itself. Despite this, for the reasons which are not clear to us, the State Government came up with yet another amendment in ROP, 1999 which were referred to as Eighteenth Amendment Rules in which once again it was provided that the substituted provision of FR 22 (I)(a)(2) as notified by notification dated 3rd October, 1999 shall be applicable in case of movement under CAS and that such amendment shall be effective from 01.01.1996. 16. Two things that emerge from such Rules and successive amendments in the Rules are that all the petitioners were given benefit of CAS without assignment of duties or responsibilities of the higher post. As per amended FR 22(I) by a Government of Tripura notification dated 3rd October, 1999 therefore, their cases fell under FR 22 (I)(a)(2) and not FR 22(I)(a)(1). They therefore, were not entitled to pay fixation in the higher scale. Their pay fixations pursuant to the CAS-1 benefits were carried out after this event. Amendment in FR 22 by way of State amendments was already made by the time they were given benefit of CAS-1. Amendments in ROP, 1999 were thereafter merely consequential and can be seen as clarificatory in nature. Their pay fixations pursuant to the CAS-1 benefits were carried out after this event. Amendment in FR 22 by way of State amendments was already made by the time they were given benefit of CAS-1. Amendments in ROP, 1999 were thereafter merely consequential and can be seen as clarificatory in nature. The relevant portion of Fifth Amendment of ROP, 1999 merely clarified the position that the pay fixation in case of promotion to a post not carrying higher responsibility or CAS benefit shall be done in terms of FR 22(I)(a)(2). This amendment also was made w.e.f 01.01.1996. It is true that the Fifth Amendment in ROP, 1999 was made under a notification dated 24.03.2000 by which the petitioners were already granted the benefit of CAS-1 and in that sense, the retrospective effect of these amendments did effect the petitioners. However, as noted this amendment was not substantive but clarificatory in nature and therefore, would apply retro actively. As noted, under Eighteenth amendment to ROP, 1999 it was further clarified that at the time of granting CAS benefit to an employee the pay fixation would be carried out in terms of substituted FR22 (I)(a)(2) and that this amendment itself would be brought into w.e.f. 01.01.1996. In view of the amendment of ROP,1999 by Fifth Amendment insofar as our case is concerned, this subsequent amendment under Eighteenth Amendment Rules did not have any further significant impact. 17. Under the circumstances, we do not find that the learned Single Judge has committed any error in not striking down the corrections in the pay fixations of the petitioners and limiting the relief to preventing the Government from carrying on recoveries from the past payments of salary. Writ appeal therefore, must fail. In writ petition, the challenge to the Rules will fail, so also challenge to the modification in pay fixation. However, this petitioner shall also be protected against the recoveries of the past overpayments of salary. 18. In the result, these proceedings are disposed of with following order: (i) Writ Appeal No. 37 of 2017 is dismissed. (ii) In Writ Petition(c) No.635 of 2017 challenge to the Rules is rejected. The challenge of the petitioner to correction of the pay fixation by an impugned order dated 28.03.2011 is also rejected. 18. In the result, these proceedings are disposed of with following order: (i) Writ Appeal No. 37 of 2017 is dismissed. (ii) In Writ Petition(c) No.635 of 2017 challenge to the Rules is rejected. The challenge of the petitioner to correction of the pay fixation by an impugned order dated 28.03.2011 is also rejected. However, since the overpayment was not on account of any fault or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, as in case of petitioners of Writ Appeal No.37 of 2017, the recovery for the access payment of the past period is not allowed. 19. The writ appeal and writ petition are disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.