JUDGMENT Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - The challenge here is to the acceptance by the State of the recommendations of the Fifth State Pay Commission pertaining to the scales of pay of personnel in the Meghalaya Treasury Accounts Service. 2. The principal ground of challenge is that it was only in 2014 that the State had recognised that the cadre structure of the Meghalaya Treasury Accounts Service was comparable to that of the Meghalaya Accounts Service as, in both the cases, the minimum educational qualifications at the entry-level, the in-service training and the nature of works were similar. Further, the relevant notification of July 1, 2014 acknowledged that an additional qualification was mandatory for entrants in the Meghalaya Treasury Accounts Service as the candidates had to be adept at the use of computers. 3. Pursuant to the notification of July 1, 2014, the pay-scales of the three posts under the Meghalaya Treasury Accounts Service were upgraded for Accountants, Senior Accounts Assistants and Junior Accounts Assistants such that they were at par with the comparable posts in the Meghalaya Accounts Service. In its report of July 31, 2017 the Fifth Meghalaya Pay Commission noticed several anomalies arising as a result of the upgradation in the pay-scales pertaining to the Meghalaya Treasury Accounts Service. The Commission noted that earlier State Pay Commissions had maintained the pay-scales of the Meghalaya Secretariat Subordinate Service, which is the premier subordinate service in the State, at a higher level than that of the Meghalaya Subordinate Treasury Accounts Service. The difference in the pay-scales was noticed and the Commission observed that 'an anomalous position has arisen out of the State Government decision to sharply increase the pay scales of the Meghalaya Subordinate Treasury Accounts Service, as indicated above'. 4. The difference in the pay-scales was noticed and the Commission observed that 'an anomalous position has arisen out of the State Government decision to sharply increase the pay scales of the Meghalaya Subordinate Treasury Accounts Service, as indicated above'. 4. Upon considering the matter, the Fifth Pay Commission recommended as follows at paragraph 14.1.5 of its report: '14.1.5 Having considered all aspects of the matter, the Commission recommends- (a) Status quo in respect of the levels of pay scales of the UDAs and LDAs under the Meghalaya Secretariat Subordinate Services, as fixed by the Meghalaya Revision Pay Rules, 2009; (b) Re-fixation of the pay levels of the Meghalaya Subordinate Treasury Accounts Service, with effect from the date of implementation of the Commission's recommendations, as follows- Accountant : Level - 12 (starting at Rs 39400) Senior Accounts Assistant: Level - 11 (starting at Rs 37800) Junior Accounts Assistant: Level - 8 (starting at Rs 30300) (c) The pay of the affected Members of the Meghalaya Subordinate Treasury Accounts Service may be protected in the Pay levels as recommended above with reference to the actual amount drawn as Pay and DA on the effective date, under the relevant provisions of the Meghalaya F.Rs and S.Rs.' 5. The writ petitioner association complains that when the State government perceived as recently as in 2014, that the duties discharged by the personnel in the two branches were the same or comparable and when the State acknowledged that an additional technical qualification was necessary to be recruited into the Meghalaya Treasury Accounts Service, the Fifth Pay Commission could not have undone the same, particularly without specifically disagreeing with the reason for the upgradation indicated in the notification of July 1, 2014. The underlying submission is that the mere resentment of the other group of employees would not be a relevant consideration for, in effect, downgrading another cadre of State employees. 6. The other contention of the writ petitioner association is that as a consequence of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission and its acceptance and implementation by the State, there is a possibility of the State seeking to recover the additional pay that may have been released to the members of the writ petitioner association and others of their ilk in line with the pay-scales applicable to similar posts in the Meghalaya Accounts Service. 7. 7. As far as the first aspect of the matter is concerned, it must be said that the scope of judicial review is limited when it comes to a decision for upgrading or refusing to upgrade the pay or emoluments of a cadre of employees and, ordinarily, it is the prerogative of the executive that prevails. However, if the decision is found to be outlandish or crass irrational, the Court may intervene. 8. In the present case, the State has merely accepted the recommendations in such regard by a specialised body which was set up for the purpose of determining the pay-scales of different cadres of State employees. Once such specialised body has indicated a semblance of reasoning upon applying its mind to the matters in issue and the State, in its discretion, has accepted the same, the Court will not, in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interfere therewith. At the end of the day, in this jurisdiction the Court is more concerned with the decision-making process rather than the decision itself, unless the decision shocks the conscience of the Court or appears to be grossly disproportionate. 9. The matter would have been different if the pay-scales had been lowered. Under the general rules of pay protection that have developed in the service jurisprudence in this country, once a pay-scale is granted to a person or a cadre, it cannot be subsequently altered to the detriment or prejudice of the individual or the cadre. In the present case, pursuant to the notification of July 1, 2014, the highest levels of the pay-scales for Accountants, Senior Accounts Assistants and Junior Accounts Assistants in the Meghalaya Treasury Accounts Service were pegged at Rs.30,610/-, Rs.28,780/-, Rs.27,510/-, respectively. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, the Accountants, Senior Accounts Assistants and Junior Accounts Assistants in the Meghalaya Treasury Account Service start at the levels of Rs.39,400/-, Rs.37,800/- and Rs.30,300/-, respectively. This is not a case of any pay being lowered. 10. The real grievance of the writ petitioner is that its members could not keep up with the Joneses in the Meghalaya Accounts Service and there may have been some loss of face in their upgraded status under the notification of July 1, 2014 not being retained in the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission. 11. There is, however, merit in the second ground canvassed. 11. There is, however, merit in the second ground canvassed. It is possible that the pay-scales recommended by the Fifth Pay Commission are to be implemented with retrospective effect and till the date when the actual implementation starts, personnel in the Meghalaya Treasury Accounts Service may have been paid at par with the personnel holding similar posts in the Meghalaya Accounts Service. To such extent, there is a possibility that the excess amount paid to personnel of the Meghalaya Treasury Accounts Service may be attempted to be recovered by the State on the ground of excess payment. 12. That would be clearly impermissible. Once an employee or a group of employees has been paid at a particular level pursuant to a considered decision, even if erroneously, the additional or excess payment made may not be recovered unless the additional payment was made as a result of some fraud perpetrated by the employee or the employees concerned or the additional payment was induced by such employee or employees. In the present case, it was a government notification of July 1, 2014 that placed the personnel in the Meghalaya Treasury Accounts Service at par with those occupying comparable posts in the Meghalaya Accounts Service. The payments that have been made to the personnel in the Meghalaya Treasury Accounts Service till the date of implementation of the recommendations of the Fifth State Pay Commission, even if higher than what has been recommended by the Pay Commission, cannot be recovered since the additional payment was not fraudulently obtained by the personnel of the Treasury cadre nor otherwise induced by such personnel. 13. Accordingly, WP (C) No.485 of 2018 is disposed of by dismissing the principal challenge therein to the recommendations of the Fifth State Pay Commission and the State's decision to implement the same. However, to the extent that excess payment may have been made to the members of the writ petitioner association or other personnel of the Meghalaya Treasury Accounts Service prior to the cut-off date fixed for implementation of the recommendations of the Fifth Meghalaya Pay Commission, the same may not be recovered by the State. 14. As a consequence, MC (WPC) No.253/2018 stands disposed of. 15. There will be no order as to costs.