JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing of the Letter No. 1711 dated 01.06.2011 (Annexure-5) issued by respondent No.5; whereby the benefits of 1st A.C.P which had been granted to the petitioner w.e.f 14.12.1999 as per the decision of Departmental Screening Committee vide Govt. Memo No. 1171 dated 27.07.2007 (Annexure-4) issued by the respondent No.4 has been recalled and an order has been passed by respondent No.5 to grant the benefits of 1st A.C.P to the petitioner w.e.f. 09.02.2006 with a further order to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner as salary after re-fixing the salary of the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondent-authorities to accept the confirmation of the benefit of 1st A.C.P w.e.f 14.12.1999 which had been duly granted him under Memo No. 1171 dated 27.07.2007. 3. The brief facts of the case is that after being successful in graduate level limited competitive examination held in the year 1985, the petitioner was recommended by the Bihar State Subordinate Selection Board for his appointment as Co-operative Extension Officer along with 11 other persons in Co-operative Department, Bihar, Patna. Pursuant thereto; he was appointed as Co-operative Extension Officer and was posted in the office of Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kosi Division, Saharsa vide Govt. Letter dated 09.12.1987, which he joined on 14.12.1987. Subsequently, the petitioner was posted in Vaishali district and after getting permission from the concerned department he appeared in the competitive examination held by Bihar Public Service Commission and after being selected was recommended for his appointment on the post of Supply Inspector in Food, Supply and Commerce Department, Bihar vide Letter No. 414 dated 30.11.1993 issued by the Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission and finally the petitioner was appointed as Supply Inspector in the scale of Rs. 1600-2780/- vide Govt. Memo No. 340 dated 22.01.1994. Thereafter, the petitioner was relieved from the Co-operative Department to join on the new post of Supply Inspector in Food, Supply and Commerce Department, Bihar. Subsequently, after bifurcation of State, in the year’2002, Jharkhand State Government vide its Letter No. 5207 dated 14.08.2002 issued by the Finance Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi took a decision to provide the benefit of 1st A.C.P and 2nd A.C.P to its employees after completion of 12 years and 24 years of service respectively. 4. Subsequently, after bifurcation of State, in the year’2002, Jharkhand State Government vide its Letter No. 5207 dated 14.08.2002 issued by the Finance Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi took a decision to provide the benefit of 1st A.C.P and 2nd A.C.P to its employees after completion of 12 years and 24 years of service respectively. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the provision of Financial Up-gradation under the A.C.P Scheme is that the service of an employee should be taken from the date of initial appointment for the purpose of granting monetary benefit; as such this petitioner who was initially appointed as Co-operative Extension Officer in the Co-operative Department and worked on the said post w.e.f. 14.12.1987 till 08.02.1994 when he was relieved from the erstwhile department to join as Supply Inspector after being selected through Bihar Public Service Commission; the Financial Up-Gradation of the petitioner should be counted from the date of initial appointment i.e. 14.12.1987 and accordingly; the Departmental Screening Committee of Food, Supply and Consumer Affair Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi has rightly granted the 1st A.C.P to this petitioner on 14.12.1999, after completion of 12 years of service from the date of initial appointment of this petitioner on the post of Co-operative Extension Officer. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that through pursuant to the Government order issued under Memo No.1171 dated 27.07.2007 (Annexure-4), the benefit of 1st A.C.P was granted w.e.f. 14.12.1999 and the salary was fixed on the basic pay scale of Rs. 7075/- w.e.f. 14.12.1999 and in the basic pay scale of Rs. 8300/- w.e.f 01.12.2006 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ramgarh, Dumka on 8.11.2007 and the petitioner was being given the said salary accordingly; however, pursuant to Letter No. 1711 dated 01.06.2011 issued by the Respondent No.5 the benefit of 1st A.C.P granted to this petitioner w.e.f. 14.12.1999 on the basis of Departmental Screening Committee has been cancelled and it has been ordered to grant the benefit of 1st A.C.P w.e.f. 09.02.2006 and it was further ordered that the excess salary which has been paid to this petitioner shall be recovered from him. 6. 6. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the benefit of A.C.P which was earlier granted from the date of initial appointment has been modified to the extent that the petitioner will get the 1st A.C.P benefit w.e.f 09.02.2006 and this shifting of benefit was done behind back of this petitioner and no show cause notice was issued for this. 7. Mr. Anjani Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on three grounds; (a) As per the resolution of Government of Jharkhand the benefit of Financial Up-gradation should be given from the date of initial appointment; (b) The shifting of date of granting benefit from 14.12.1999 to 09.02.2006 has been done unilaterally without informing to this petitioner and also without giving any show cause notice; (c) The recovery order has been issued in spite of the fact that no fraud or suppression has been committed by the petitioner; as such recovery order is also bad in law. In support of his contention on recovery he relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Ram Krishna Singh Versus The State of Jharkhand and Ors, reported in (2011) 4 JCR 193 8. Ms. Darshana Poddar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent-State relied upon the counter-affidavit and submits that as per the A.C.P. Scheme the benefit of Financial Up-gradation is given to an employee and the resolutions which governs this provision stipulates in Para 2(2) that A.C.P. is given to the Government Servant who has been directly recruited to a sanction post and has completed 12/24 years of continuous service. It has been further stipulated in the said resolution at Para 3 VI that regular and continuous service is counted after direct recruitment to a particular Government post and since the petitioner has joined a new service on the post of Supply Inspector after competing in the examination held by Bihar Public Service Commission; he is entitled for A.C.P benefit from the date of joining as Supply Inspector and that is the reason; the ACP benefits which was granted to him earlier was modified and an order of recovery was also ordered. 9. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits it appears that the petitioner had initially joined service as Co-operative Extension Officer in the year 1987 and subsequently by virtue of the petitioner having successfully cleared another examination; was appointed as Supply Inspector in the year 1994. The prayer of the petitioner is to the effect that his service should be counted right from the year 1987 and on that basis the benefit of 1st A.C.P was rightly granted to him in the year 1999 after the completion of 12 years of service. 10. It transpires that the Assured Career Progression (A.C.P) benefits given to the employees of the State Government is governed by the Resolution 5207 dated 14.08.2002. Para-2(2) of this resolution provides that A.C.P. is given to a Government Servant who has been directly recruited to a sanctioned post and has completed 12/24 years of continuous service. It is further provided in Para 3-VI of the above-mentioned letter that regular and continuous service is counted after direct recruitment to a particular Government post. This goes to show that the petitioner’s length of service will be counted for promotion after his joining on the post of Supply Inspector. From records it clearly transpires that the petitioner has shifted from the Co-operative Department to the Department of Food and Civil Supplies of his own wish; he cannot be granted the benefit of computation of period of service he has rendered as Co-operative Extension Officer. In this regard, reliance may be made to the Circular of the then State of Bihar (adopted by the State of Jharkhand by virtue of the Bihar reorganization Act, 2000) dated 26.08.1972; which says that if the service of an employee is transferred from one department to another department on his request; then his past service shall not be taken into account for the purpose of seniority. By virtue of the above-mentioned circular, the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of the service rendered by him in the department of Co-operative. Thus, it appears that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 11. So far as the petitioner comparing his case with that of another employee namely, Shri Gunjan Kishore Gupta; from averments made in the counter affidavit it appears that his case was different from that of the petitioner. Thus, it appears that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 11. So far as the petitioner comparing his case with that of another employee namely, Shri Gunjan Kishore Gupta; from averments made in the counter affidavit it appears that his case was different from that of the petitioner. Shri Gunjan was earlier posted in the Department of Consolidation (Chakbandi). The said department has been wound up and the service of Shri Gunjan has been absorbed by the Department of Food and Civil Supplies. In that case, the employee has not shifted from one department to another but has been compelled to shift in view of a scheme of the Government. In such a situation, the employee has to be granted the benefit of past service. The case of Shri Gunjan is that of absorption whereas the case of the present petitioner is that of a fresh appointment. The two cases are not similarly situated and hence no comparison can be made between the two. Even otherwise, there cannot be a negative equality. Even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefits inadvertently or by mistake; such order cannot confer any legal right on the petitioner. A reference in this regard may made in the case of Basawaraj and Another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 , wherein at paragraph 8 it has been held as under:- “8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of administration impossible.” 12. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the respondents themselves have granted the benefits of ACP from an earlier date w.e.f. 14.12.1999 counting his service from 1987, as such they cannot withdraw the same. In this regard it is relevant to mention here that the respondents are having every right to correct their mistake and the same cannot be said to be illegal, inasmuch as, if a wrong has been committed, it cannot be allowed to be perpetuated and the moment any illegality comes into the notice of the department; same is to be rectified. In this regard reference may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. Versus Narendra Singh reported in (2008) 2 SCC 750 wherein at Para-32 the law has been laid down as under:- “32. It is true that the mistake was of the Department and the respondent was promoted though he was not eligible and qualified. But, we cannot countenance the submission of the respondent that the mistake cannot be corrected. Mistakes are mistakes and they can always be corrected by following due process of law. In ICAR v. T.K. Suryanarayan it was held that if erroneous promotion is given by wrongly interpreting the rules, the employer cannot be prevented from applying the rules rightly and in correcting the mistake. Mistakes are mistakes and they can always be corrected by following due process of law. In ICAR v. T.K. Suryanarayan it was held that if erroneous promotion is given by wrongly interpreting the rules, the employer cannot be prevented from applying the rules rightly and in correcting the mistake. It may cause hardship to the employees but a court of law cannot ignore statutory rules.” Accordingly, so far as the first limb of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents were not allowed in amending the earlier order whereby he was given 1st A.C.P benefit w.e.f 14.12.1999; is not sustainable in the eye of law. 13. So far as the second limb of argument that no notice has been given to this petitioner, this Court is of the view that when there is no dispute on the facts; no purpose would be served in remitting the matter back to the authorities in order to provide an opportunity of hearing. It is true that any order having civil consequences should be passed after giving opportunity to the delinquent; however, in the instant case since the facts are undisputed, as such no fruitful purpose would be served by remitting the case to the respondents to issue notice and pass an order again. This would be mere formalities, inasmuch as, it has already been held in preceding paragraphs that the petitioner was entitled for A.C.P benefit after completion of 12 years from the fresh appointment i.e. w.e.f. 2006; as such the benefit of continued service will not be given to this petitioner. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in rendered in the case of Escorts Farms Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, U.P & Ors., reported in (2004)4 SCC 281 wherein at para-64 the law has been laid down as under: “64. Right of hearing to a necessary party is a valuable right. Denial of such right is serious breach of statutory procedure prescribed and violation of rules of natural justice. In these appeals preferred by the holder of lands and some other transferees, we have found that the terms of government grant did not permit transfers of land without permission of the State as grantor. Denial of such right is serious breach of statutory procedure prescribed and violation of rules of natural justice. In these appeals preferred by the holder of lands and some other transferees, we have found that the terms of government grant did not permit transfers of land without permission of the State as grantor. Remand of cases of a group of transferees who were not heard, would, therefore, be of no legal consequence, more so, when on this legal question all affected parties have got full opportunity of hearing before the High Court and in this appeal before this Court. Rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing substantial justice and not for completing a mere ritual of hearing without possibility of any change in the decision of the case on merits. In view of the legal position explained by us above, we, therefore, refrain from remanding these cases in exercise of our discretionary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.” 14. So far as last limb of argument is concerned, admittedly; no fraud or suppression has been done by this petitioner in getting the financial benefits. However from perusal of Para-2(2) and 3-VI of the Resolution 5207 dated 14.08.2002 read with the Circular of the then State of Bihar (adopted by the State of Jharkhand by virtue of the Bihar reorganization Act, 2000) dated 26.08.1972, it clearly transpires that the petitioner is entitled for 1st ACP benefit from 2006 counting his period of service when he joined a new service on the post of Supply Inspector after competing in the examination held by Bihar Public Service Commission and that is the reason; the ACP benefits which was granted to him earlier was modified and an order of recovery was also ordered. So far as the argument of the petitioner that no recovery can be made, the law is now no more res integra that there cannot be an unlawful enrichment. As held herein above that the petitioner was entitled for 1st ACP benefit from the modified date; as such there is no illegality in recovery of the excess amount which has been paid to the petitioner inadvertently. Reference in this regard may be made to the case Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors Versus State of Uttarakhand & Ors, reported in (2012)8 SCC 417 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court at Para-14 has held as under: “14. Reference in this regard may be made to the case Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors Versus State of Uttarakhand & Ors, reported in (2012)8 SCC 417 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court at Para-14 has held as under: “14. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as “taxpayers’ money” which belongs neither to the officers who have effected overpayment nor to the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. The question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not, may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by the government officers may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism, etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without the authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment.” The judgment delivered in the case of Ram Krishna Singh (supra) relied by the petitioner is not applicable in the instant case due to different facts and circumstances, inasmuch as, in the said case the recovery has been done from a retired person and in the instant case the recovery has been made when the petitioner was well within his service. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussions, no relief can be granted to this petitioner. Consequently, the instant writ application is dismissed; however, there is no order as to cost.