JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. This is an assigned matter vide order dated 31st October 2020 passed on the administrative side by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Jharkhand. 2. The High Court of Jharkhand is in appeal under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent of 1916 constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna (as adopted by the High Court of Jharkhand) against the order dated 11th April 2017 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.7563 of 2012. 3. The writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as respondent no.1) was aggrieved by the order dated 21st September 2012 by which financial upgradations extended to him in the form of 2nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs.10,000-15,200/- w.e.f. 1st December 2000 and 3rd MACP in the pay scale of Rs.15,600-39,100/- with Grade Pay of Rs.7600/- w.e.f. 1st September 2008 were withdrawn, modified and reduced to lower scales of pay. The consequential order as contained in Memo dated 18th December 2012 of recovery of Rs.5,98,509/- was also under challenge in the writ petition. 4. The learned writ Court held that on the date of consideration for grant of financial upgradations there were promotional avenues for the post of Cashier by virtue of coming into force the Jharkhand High Court Officers and the Members of Staff (Recruitment, Conditions of Service, Conduct and Appeal) Rules, 2003 w.e.f. 1st January 2003 and, therefore, the writ petitioner was entitled for grant of scale of pay of Rs.10,000-15,200/- in the form of 2nd ACP w.e.f. 1st December 2000 and not as per Appendix-1 to the Resolution dated 14th August 2002 whereunder the conditions for grant of ACPs have been prescribed. 5. The learned Single Judge has held as under : “11. From the aforementioned fact, it is quite clear that there exists hierarchy for the post of Cashier. Since there was a promotional avenue/ hierarchy for the post of Cashier, the fixation of pay scale of the petitioner cannot be as per Schedule-I of the resolution no. 5207 dated 14.08.2002 (Scheme of ACP). Thus, the objection of the State that the petitioner is entitled to get the up-gradation as per Schedule-I, cannot be accepted. The petitioner has rightly been provided the up-gradation vide order dated 15.04.2005 as 1st up-gradation in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/- w.e.f. 09.08.1999 and Rs.10000-15200/- w.e.f. 01.12.2000 as 2nd up-gradation. 5207 dated 14.08.2002 (Scheme of ACP). Thus, the objection of the State that the petitioner is entitled to get the up-gradation as per Schedule-I, cannot be accepted. The petitioner has rightly been provided the up-gradation vide order dated 15.04.2005 as 1st up-gradation in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/- w.e.f. 09.08.1999 and Rs.10000-15200/- w.e.f. 01.12.2000 as 2nd up-gradation. Since, the Rules of Jharkhand High Court provides for promotional avenue for the Cashier, which was not there in the Rules of Patna High Court and since the petitioner is an employee of the Jharkhand High Court, it is the Rules of Jharkhand High Court which will govern the case of the petitioner. Further as it has been held above that the Schedule-I of the resolution no. 5207 dated 14.08.2002, is not applicable to the petitioner and the petitioner has rightly been given the up-gradation of pay scale vide order dated 15.04.2005, as contained in Memo no. 22/Acctts., and is entitled to get all consequential benefits.” 6. As a consequence of the aforesaid findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge, the order of recovery dated 18th December 2012 was also quashed by the Court. 7. Mr. A. K. Mehta, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised three-fold contentions: (i) financial upgradation to an employee is granted in terms of the applicable rules as on the date the employee attained eligibility, (ii) respondent no.1 whose service conditions were prescribed under Rules of 1997 is entitled for scale of pay as prescribed under Appendix-1 to Resolution Dated 14th August 2002 as the post of Cashier was a solitary post without any promotional avenue, and (iii) excess payment made on account of a mistake by the employer even though there was no misrepresentation or suppression of fact by the employee can be recovered. 8. The main contention raised by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for respondent no.1, is that it is the law which was in force on the date of consideration for grant of financial upgradation that alone shall govern entitlement of the employee and not the Rules which by that time was replaced by a new Rule. 9. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for respondent no.1, relies on the judgment in “Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited & Ors. v. Ananta Saha & Ors.” (2011) 5 SCC 142 ” to fortify his submissions. 10. 9. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for respondent no.1, relies on the judgment in “Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited & Ors. v. Ananta Saha & Ors.” (2011) 5 SCC 142 ” to fortify his submissions. 10. On recovery part, the learned counsel for respondent no.1, submits that after so many years and that too after superannuation of the respondent no.1 the order of recovery which was quashed by the learned Single Judge may not be interfered by this Court. 11. The respondent no.1 was appointed on the post of Cashier at Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court on 1st December 1976. The Patna High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1997 was published vide Notification dated 9th December 1997. Under these Rules, the post of Cashier is a stand alone post without any promotional avenue. After creation of the State of Jharkhand, the scheme for providing financial upgradations to the government employees was notified by the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand vide Resolution dated 14th August 2002. Under the aforesaid ACP scheme, an employee is entitled for 1st ACP on completing 12 years of continuous service and 2nd ACP after 24 years of continuous service provided he was not given regular promotion. The ACP Scheme further provided that financial upgradation to a government employee appointed to a post which carries no promotional avenue shall be as per the scale of pay provided under Appendix-I. 12. The respondent no.1 became eligible for 1st ACP w.e.f. 9th August 1999 and 2nd ACP w.e.f 1st December 2000 and by an order dated 15th April 2005 he was granted benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP. 13. The stand taken by respondent no.1 is that on 15th April 2005 when 1st and 2nd ACPs were granted to him he was an employee of the High Court of Jharkhand and his service conditions were regulated under the Rules of 2003. 14. This proposition was accepted by the learned writ Court. 15. The Jharkhand High Court Officers and the Members of Staff (Recruitment, Conditions of Service, Conduct and Appeal) Rules, 2003 came into force from 1st January 2003. Under these rules, the post of Cashier is a non-gazetted post under Schedule D with pay scale of Rs.5,500-175-9,000/-. Under Schedule D, the posts of Personal Assistants, Assistants and Cashier carry the same pay scale. Under these rules, the post of Cashier is a non-gazetted post under Schedule D with pay scale of Rs.5,500-175-9,000/-. Under Schedule D, the posts of Personal Assistants, Assistants and Cashier carry the same pay scale. Schedule C provides list of Class-II gazetted officers whereunder the post of Section Officer appears at Sl. No.5 and it carries pay scale of Rs.6,500-200-10,500/-. 16. The contention of the respondent no.1 is that the next promotional avenue for him is the post of Section Officer on which appointment is made by promotion from Assistants, Legal Assistants and Translators or “any post of the same scale” because under Schedule D the post of Cashier carries the same pay scale as that of Assistants. 17. A closure look at Schedule C would reveal that the next promotional post for Cashier is Accounts-cum-Cash Officer at Sl. No.8. It further appears that appointment to the post of Section Officers is by promotion on the basis of merit-cum-seniority/length of service in the existing grade. 18. Apart from that, we are unable to support the findings by the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioner after coming into force of the Rules of 2003 was governed under Schedule C of the said Rules and, therefore, financial upgradations were correctly given to him vide office order dated 15th April 2005. The financial upgradations under ACP scheme of 2002 are granted in a time-bound manner on completion of 12 years and 24 years of continuous service. The date of consideration by the competent authority is not relevant for financial upgradations and unlike regular promotions the financial upgradations take effect from the date the employee completed 12 years and 24 years of continuous service – that is to say, financial upgradation can be effective from a retrospective date. Therefore, the date on which the employee attained eligibility the law in force shall be applied to grant him financial upgradations and not future law which may come into force by the time a claim of the employee is finally decided by the employer. The scenario may be different in case of regular promotion in which case the rules in force as on the date of consideration governing the service conditions of the employee are generally applied. The 2nd financial upgradation to the respondent no. The scenario may be different in case of regular promotion in which case the rules in force as on the date of consideration governing the service conditions of the employee are generally applied. The 2nd financial upgradation to the respondent no. 1 was granted vide order dated 15th April 2005 but from the date it become due to him on 1st December 2000. That was the date on which Bihar Rules of 1997 were applicable and not Rules of 2003 which became effective from 1st January 2003. 19. The resolution dated 14th August 2002 clearly lays down that financial upgradation to a government employee who is appointed on a post which has no promotional avenue shall be in the pay scale provided under Appendix-1. The pay scale which the respondent was drawing as Cashier was Rs.5,500-175-9,000/- which is at Sl. No.10 in Appendix-1. The next higher scale at Sl. No. 11 in Appendix-1 is pay scale of Rs.6,500-200-10,500/- which was the financial upgradation under 1st ACP and the pay scale of Rs.7,500-250-12,000/- is at Sl.No. 12 which shall be the 2nd financial upgradation. The respondent no. 1 was however granted pay scale of Rs.10,000-15,200/- which is at Sl. No.14. 20. Any claim for grant of financial upgradation must be seen in the context of the cascading financial effect which may ensue and affect the whole cadre. A government employee has a statutory right to claim financial upgradation subject to his fulfilling the essential eligibility conditions but except under very exceptional class of cases an employee cannot claim benefits under the new Rules. At the time of his appointment the respondent no.1 was an employee of the Patna High Court and posted at Ranchi Bench and governed under Bihar Rules of 1997 and the Jharkhand High Court Officers and the Members of Staff (Recruitment, Conditions of Service, Conduct and Appeal) Rules, 2003 has not been made applicable with a retrospective date. As all laws are generally prospective in nature if we have to accept the interpretation of the learned Single Judge that for financial upgradations the past services of the respondent no.1 shall also be governed under the new Rules, it would have wide ramifications. 21. For the aforesaid reasons, we would interfere with the findings recorded in paragraph no.11 of the order dated 11th April 2017 passed in W.P.(S) No.7563 of 2012. 22. 21. For the aforesaid reasons, we would interfere with the findings recorded in paragraph no.11 of the order dated 11th April 2017 passed in W.P.(S) No.7563 of 2012. 22. However, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge quashing the order of recovery dated 18th December 2012. In compliance of the order dated 1st May 2017 passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the learned writ Court's order has been implemented by the State Government. The Joint Registrar (Establishment) forwarded pre-audit bill of the respondent to the office of the Accountant General (A&E) for issuing authority slips as per 6th Pay Revision and the same were issued on 6th December 2017. With respect to payment to the respondent no.1 in the supplementary affidavit dated 4th February 2022 filed on behalf of the appellant it has been stated thus; “It is a matter of record that by Letter No.2352/Accts. dated 20.06.2017 the Registrar (Establishment) of the Appellant transmitted Service Book of Respondent No.1 for verification to the Principal Secretary, Department of Law (Judicial) in view of the Office Order No.327/Accts. dated 04.05.2017 issued in the light of the judgment dated 11.04.2017 passed in WPS No.7563 of 2012 and by Letter dated 14.07.2017 the Joint Registrar (Establishment) transmitted Pre Audit Bill for issuance of 3 Authority Slips towards final amount regarding implementation of 6th Pay Revision amounting to Rs.50,953 for the period 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2007, Rs.51,908 towards arrears of pay for the period 01.09.2012 to 31.01.2013 and Rs.74,162 against 2 yearly increments for the year 2013 and 2014 totalling Rs.1,77,023 and the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, Ranchi has also issued 3 Authority Slips to the Treasury Officer, Doranda dated 06.12.2017.” 23. Mr. A.K. Mehta, the learned counsel for the High Court would refer to the judgments in “Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.” (2012) 8 SCC 417 and “High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors. v. Jagdev Singh” (2016) 14 SCC 267 to press hard upon us to affirm the decision of the High Court to recover Rs.5,98,509/- from the respondent no. 1. 24. On the other hand, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondent with reference to the judgments in “State of Rajasthan v. Mahesh Kumar Sharma” (2011) 4 SCC 257 , “Director, Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. 1. 24. On the other hand, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondent with reference to the judgments in “State of Rajasthan v. Mahesh Kumar Sharma” (2011) 4 SCC 257 , “Director, Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. v. K. Sudheesh Kumar & Ors.” 2022 SCC OnLine SC 101, “Union of India & Ors. v. M.V. Mohanan Nair” (2020) 5 SCC 421 and “Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Anr. v. Bal Krishan Sharma & Ors.” (2022) 1 SCC 322 takes the plea of long passage of time and retirement of the respondent no.1. 25. The aforesaid judgments are rendered in the facts of the case and are clearly distinguishable on facts. The principles laid down in these judgments provide valuable guidelines to the Courts but the final decision by the Courts ultimately depends on the facts of the case. In a somewhat similar situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Director, Directorate of Enforcement” restrained recovery of the difference in the pension already paid to the government employee. 26. In “Director, Directorate of Enforcement”, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : 16. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside and the judgment and order that of the Central Administrative Tribunal is hereby restored. It is observed and held that on implementation of MACP Scheme respondent No. 1 and 2 herein shall be entitled to the grade pay of Rs. 5400 and not of Rs. 6600 as claimed by them. Their pensions be refixed accordingly. However, it is observed that as respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are the retired employees and till date they have received the pension considering the grade pay of Rs. 6600 and being retired persons it will be very difficult for them to refund the difference in the pay pension, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we direct that there shall be no recovery of the difference in the pension between the grade pay of Rs. 5400 and grade pay of Rs. 6600 for the period prior to December, 2021. However, on refixation of the pension as per the present judgment and order, fixing their grade pay of Rs. 5400 they shall be paid the pension accordingly from January, 2022 onwards. ....” 27. We accept the submission made by Mr. 5400 and grade pay of Rs. 6600 for the period prior to December, 2021. However, on refixation of the pension as per the present judgment and order, fixing their grade pay of Rs. 5400 they shall be paid the pension accordingly from January, 2022 onwards. ....” 27. We accept the submission made by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, that financial upgradations extended to respondent no.1 in the year 2005 are sought to be withdrawn in the year 2012 and now it is about 17 years when such benefits were given to the respondent no.1 and, therefore, it would be harsh and onerous upon the respondent no.1 if this Court interferes with the order of the learned Single Judge on this issue. We also take note of the judgment in “Director, Directorate of Enforcement” to fortify ourselves that at this stage this Court should not interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge to approve the order of recovery dated 18th December 2012. 28. For the aforesaid reasons L.P.A. No.488 of 2017 is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. The consequential benefits shall be calculated in terms of the office order dated 21st September 2012. 29. I.A. No.7715 of 2017 stands disposed of.