Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.—Heard the parties. 2. The case is being taken up from defect side. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to submit the original petition along with attested affidavits and also remove all the defects pointed out by the Registry within two weeks from today. 3. The short question involved in the present petition is interpretation of Rule F.R. 22 (1) read with the circular issued by the State Government in relation to the method and manner in which increment is to be granted under Rule 22 (1) (a) (1). 4. The facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed in the years 1991 and 1995 in Lower Subordinate Education Service Cadre as Assistant Teacher in the trained pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800/-. The Assured Career Progression Scheme Rules, 2003 was introduced (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2003 ACP Scheme’) and as per the said scheme upon completion of 12 years on a post, the petitioners were granted pay scale of higher post, that is, Rs. 5500-9000/-. The ACP scheme came to be modified and a new modified Assured Career Progression Scheme, 2010 was introduced by the State Government known as MACP scheme whereunder benefit was to be provided on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service. Upon completion of 20 years of service, therefore the petitioners were granted second time bound promotion pay scale and placed in the pay scale of Rs. 9300- 34800/- with grade pay of Rs. 4800/-. After the said benefit was granted with effect from 2011( petitioner nos. 1 to 6) and 2015 (petitioner no. 7), the petitioners were granted regular promotion from the post of Assistant Teacher to the post of lecturer which carried the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800/- with grade pay of Rs.4200/- vide order dated 20th November, 2015 and 30th June, 2016 respectively. The petitioners pay fixation was again made and applying Rule 22(1) (a) (1) of the fundamental rules 3% increments upon having been promoted was granted to them. 5. It is to be noted that the petitioners have already been granted 3% increments benefits at the stage when they were placed in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800/- on completion of 20 years of service under the MACP Scheme. 6. 5. It is to be noted that the petitioners have already been granted 3% increments benefits at the stage when they were placed in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800/- on completion of 20 years of service under the MACP Scheme. 6. The grievances may not have arisen, had the other similarly placed persons not approached this Court seeking a similar relief as given to the petitioners by preferring the writ petition, which resulted in a direction issued by this Court to the Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna to examine the case of the similarly placed persons. After examining the aspects, an order came to be passed on 03.02.2020 by the Education Department, Government of Bihar Patna and the State Government reached to the conclusion that 3% of pay (which means one increment) cannot be granted twice to persons who have already been given benefit under the MACP scheme upon having been promoted again on regular basis. It is therefore, proceeded to direct that all those persons who have received the benefit of 3% increments after having received it earlier under the MACP, would be liable to recovery. The pay fixation was also required to be done afresh. This resulted in the present petition being filed by the petitioners who are aggrieved of the said order dated 03rd February, 2020. 7. Learned counsel submits that Rule F.R. 22(1) applies to persons who are promoted on a higher post and therefore on regular promotion the initial pay in the time-scale of higher post shall be fixed at the stage next above the notional pay arrived at by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post held by him regularly by increment at the stage, at which such pay has accrued. He has taken this Court to the method and manner in which such benefit is granted as explained by the State Government in its circular and submits that as the petitioners were drawing the pay on the lower post in the grade of Rs.9300-34800/- with grade pay of Rs.4800/- on the day of promotion that is, in 2015, the Rule has to be interpreted to give them additional 3% pay benefit namely one increment on promotion which would be in addition to what the petitioners have received on completion of 20 years of service. He, therefore, submits that the action of the State is unjustified and contrary to Rule 22(1) (a) (1) and the decision dated 3rd February, 2020 be quashed. 8. Learned counsel submits that there was no occasion to have passed general order of recovery against those who were not therefore before the Government. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has taken this Court to the provisions granting MACP which specifically lays down the manner in which MACP is to be released. To understand the said aspect it would be appropriate to quote the provision. ^^bl ;kstuk ds vèkhu foŸkh; mUu;u nsrs le; osru fuèkkZj.k dk ogh ykHk fn;k tk,xk tks fu;fer izksUufr ds le; fn;k tkrk gSA blfy,] ,sls mUu;u ds iwoZ osru cSaM vkSj xzsM osru esa feyus okys dqy osru esa 3 izfr’kr dh o`f) dh tk,xhA fdUrq] ;fn :ikUrfjr lqfuf'pr o`fr mUu;u ;kstuk ds vèkhu Lohd`r xzsM osru ogha gks tks fu;fer izksUufr ds le; dk xzsM osru gks rks fu;fer izksUufr ds le; dksbZ osru fuèkkZj.k ugha fd;k tk,xkA okLrfod izksUufr ds le; ;fn ;g mlls mPprj xzsM osru okyk in gks tks :ikUrfjr lqfuf'pr o`fr mUu;u ;kstuk ds le; feyk Fkk] rc Hkh dksbZ osru fuèkkZj.k ugha gksxk vkSj ek=k xzsM osru dh vUrj jkf'k tksM+h tk,xhA mnkgj.kkFkZ] ;fn dksbZ ljdkjh lsod osru cSaM&1 ds xzsM osru 1900@& : esa lhèkh HkrhZ ds ekè;e ls ;ksxnku djrk gS vkSj mls 10 o"kZ dh lsok iwjh djus rd dksbZ izksUufr ugha feyrk gks rks :ikUrfjr lqfuf'pr o`fr mUu;u ;kstuk ds vèkhu mls vxys mPprj xzsM osru 2000@&:ñ esa foÙkh; mUu;u iznku fd;k tk,xk ,oa mldk osru fuèkkZj.k ,d osru o`f) ds lkFk&lkFk xzsM&is ds varj ¼vFkkZr~ 100 :ñ½ dks tksM+dj fuèkkZfjr fd;k tk,xkA :ikUrfjr lqfuf'pr o`fr mUu;u ;kstuk ds vèkhu foŸkh; mUu;u izkIr dj ysus ds ckn ;fn og ljdkjh lsod vius laoxZ ds mijh in lksiku esa fu;fer izksUufr izkIr djrk gks ftldk xzsM osru 2400@& : gks rks] fu;fer izksUufr feyus ij mls ek=k xzsM osru 2400@&:ñ vkSj 2000@& :ñ dh vUrj jkf'k gh iznku dh tk,xhA bl izØe ij mls dksbZ vfrfjDr osru o`f) ugha nh tk,xhA** 10. Her submission is therefore in support of the order passed by the State Government dated 03rd February, 2020 and it is stated that as the regular promotion was not granted earlier, benefit of increment and placement in higher promotional pay scale was given on completion of ten years of service. However, once regular promotion has been granted, the benefit continues and the person cannot be allowed to take advantage twice of promotional pay. 11. I have considered the submission, the language of Rule 22(1) (a) (1) is unambiguous and clear. The words ‘by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post held by him regularly by increment at the stage at which such pay has accrued’ shows that it is the pay attached to the lower post which is to be taken into account and not the higher pay given on account of stagnation. Higher pay is the pay scale of the promotional post. 12. In lieu of the promotion MACP is granted, where after if promotion is given, the person continues in the same pay scale. Thus, if suppose the petitioners would have been granted MACP and still the pay scale is lessor than the pay scale of the higher post on which he is promoted, he would get the additional benefit. However, if the pay scale of MACP and that of promotion post is same, there is no occasion to grant him increment twice. In fact, if the MACP is granted, the concerned persons starts getting a higher pay which is admissible to the post on which he would otherwise have been promoted. If he is later on promoted, he gets the increment of the year in the said pay but does not get the additional increments. The explanation given by the Bihar Government is also inconsonance with above. In fact, it has been made very clear in the MACP scheme itself, as pointed out by learned counsel, that additional increments could not be granted on regular promotion to a person who has already been granted MACP. 13. In view of the above, no case for interference is warranted. The writ petition is found to be devoid of merits. The order dated 03rd February, 2020 does not call for any interference. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 14. It is noted that this Court had stayed the recovery of amount paid. 13. In view of the above, no case for interference is warranted. The writ petition is found to be devoid of merits. The order dated 03rd February, 2020 does not call for any interference. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 14. It is noted that this Court had stayed the recovery of amount paid. However, keeping in view of the nature of post which the petitioners held being above class-IV and Class-III and as the order has been upheld by this Court, this Court does not find any reason to stay the recovery. The law laid down in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih. (2014) 8 SCC 883 shall have no application. However, considering the present Covid situation, it is directed that the recovery shall be made in ten equal installments so that the petitioners do not face financial crunch during the pandemic. l