JUDGMENT/ORDER S.V.GANGAPURWALA, ACTING CJ., J. - Government Resolution dtd. 17/12/2018 is issued by the Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai directing the constitution of a Committee comprising of Deputy Director, Accounts and Audit Services, Assistant Director, Auditor and two other Officers to investigate and report to the State Government with regard to ; < WXY>(i) the post whose nomenclature has been changed with consequent change in pay scales, should be brought back to the pay scale as per Notification dtd. 7/10/2009; (ii) the excess amount paid to such employees whose pay scales have been changed due to change in the nomenclature, be recovered; (iii) refixation of pension of such employees who have retired after getting the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 24th February 20211; (iv) excess payment to such employees be recovered from the arrears payable to the retired employees as per the 7th Pay Commission</ WXY> 2. Under the said Government Resolution dtd. 17/12/2018 the State Government cancelled Government Resolutions dtd. 2/11/2010, 18/2/2011, 3/11/2012, 7/2/2011, 24/2/2011, 26/10/2010, 22/11/2011 and 15/2/2012 issued by the Higher and Technical Department, Mumbai. 3. In Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.5919 of 2019, the Petitioner therein seeks implementation of Government Resolution dtd. 17/12/2018 under supervision of this Court and the Government Authorities. It further seeks directions against the State to conduct inquiry as per the circumstances under which the Government Resolutions have been issued with consent of the Cabinet and approval of the Finance Department. It further seeks directions to redetermine the pay scales which have been revised by the impugned Government Resolution and further seeks recovery of the amount paid in excess by the State Government. It further seeks direction to implement the 7th Pay Scale on the basis of the original pay scale that was sanctioned in the meeting held in Mantralaya on 16/4/2009 and original nomenclature sanctioned by each University. 4. Various Writ Petitions are filed to assail the Government Resolution dtd. 17/12/2018. As all these Writ Petitions are based on common set of facts and involve common question of law, to avoid rigmarole, are decided by common judgment. The PIL also being based on same facts is being decided along with these Writ Petitions. The Writ Petitions were filed at the principal seat and the benches at Aurangabad and Nagpur. By an administrative order of the Hon'ble The Chief Justice, the same are clubbed together. 5. The PIL also being based on same facts is being decided along with these Writ Petitions. The Writ Petitions were filed at the principal seat and the benches at Aurangabad and Nagpur. By an administrative order of the Hon'ble The Chief Justice, the same are clubbed together. 5. It appears that Government Resolution dtd. 6/7/2009 was issued for fixing staffing pattern in respect of the 9 Universities in the State of Maharashtra. It was instructed in the said Government Resolution that the University should submit their postwise proposals as per the sanctioned new staffing pattern so that the post-wise order could be issued. The Universities were also instructed to fill up the vacant posts only after the Government Resolution is issued. It is not disputed that the Government Resolution dtd. 6/7/2009 is issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department. However, the UOR number mentioned was incorrect i.e. the same was mentioned 270 of 2009. Same, according to the State, ought to be UOR No.265 of 2009. 6. Pursuant to the Government Resolution dtd. 6/7/2009, the Universities submitted the detailed proposals of the staffing pattern for getting sanction. The proposals were also submitted by the Universities viz. Savitribai Phule, Pune University, Pune, Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, Shivaji University, Kolhapur, Kaviyatri Bahinabai Chaudhari, North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon, Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University, Amravati and Gondwana University, Gadchiroli. 7. Upon Government Resolution dtd. 6/7/2009, Savitribai Phule University, Pune submitted its proposal for sanctioning staffing pattern on 11/7/2009 and B.R.Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad submitted its proposal on 29/7/2009. In respect of Savitribai Phule University, Government Resolution dtd. 27/8/2009 was issued thereby declaring / showing post-wise staffing pattern and the pay scale. Similar Government Resolution is issued on 5/9/2009 in respect of non teaching staff of Amravati University. Government Resolution dtd. 17/9/2009 is issued for Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad. On 4/12/2009 the Government Resolution is issued granting post-wise staffing pattern in respect of Bahinabai Chaudhary North Maharashtra University. Similar Government Resolution dtd. 13/10/2010 is issued granting post-wise staffing pattern for Shivaji University, Kolhapur. 8. Under Notification dtd. 7/10/2009, 6th pay commission applicable for all Universities in the State of Maharashtra was published by Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. Post wise revised pay scale was fixed under Notification dtd. 7/10/2009 and post wise-schedule was also declared / published along with the said resolution. 9. It appears that after issuance of Government Resolution dtd. Under Notification dtd. 7/10/2009, 6th pay commission applicable for all Universities in the State of Maharashtra was published by Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. Post wise revised pay scale was fixed under Notification dtd. 7/10/2009 and post wise-schedule was also declared / published along with the said resolution. 9. It appears that after issuance of Government Resolution dtd. 7/10/2009 declaring / implementing 6th Pay commission and defining post wise pay scales for all non agricultural universities in the State of Maharashtra, six Universities submitted proposals with the State Government for change of nomenclature of some of the posts (name of the post). The proposals received by the Government from various Universities are as under: < WXY>i. Savitribai Phule University, Pune dtd. 26/8/2012 (IInd Proposal) ii. Aurangabad University dtd. 10/3/2011 (IInd Proposal) iii. Jalgaon University dtd. 6/10/2010. iv. Shivaji University, Kolhapur dtd. 18/2/2011 v. Gondwana University Gadchiroli dtd. 14/12/2011 vi. Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University, Amravati dtd. 19/10/2011.</ WXY> 10. In respect of the aforesaid Universities, the Higher and Technical Education Department by Government Resolutions dtd. 26/10/2010, 2/11/2010, 18/2/2011, 24/2/2011, 7/4/2011, 16/5/2011, 22/9/2011, 15/2/2012, 3/11/2012 declared the nomenclature (new name of post). It appears that since there was difference in pay scale of non teaching employees of the aforesaid six Universities and other Universities, representation was also made by the other Universities for changing the nomenclature of their post. The Higher and Technical Education Department recommended to accept the pay scales of the non teaching staffs of these six non agricultural Universities. Pursuant thereto, the impugned Government Resolution dtd. 17/12/2018 is passed. 11. We have heard Mr.Anturkar, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner in PIL (ST) No.5919/2019, Mr. Mihir Desai, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.793/2019 and Writ Petition (ST) No.24229/2019, Mr. Ram Apte, Senior Advocate for Respondent No.4 in PIL (ST) No.5919/2019, Writ Petition No.793/2019 and for Respondent No.6 in Writ Petition No.1376/2019, Mr. Godbole, learned Advocate for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1376/2019, Mr. Topkar for the Petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.792/2019, 8008/2018, 8013/2018, Ms. Riddhi Natekar for Respondent No.6 in Writ Petition No.792/2019 and Respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.8008/2018 and 8013/2018 - Shivaji University, Mr. Anish Khandekar for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1244/2020 and for Respondent No.6 in Writ Petition No.792/2019 and Mr.Ashutosh A. Kumbhakoni, learned Advocate General for the State. So also, Mr. Shashank Shubham, Mr. A. A. Naik, Mr. Riddhi Natekar for Respondent No.6 in Writ Petition No.792/2019 and Respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.8008/2018 and 8013/2018 - Shivaji University, Mr. Anish Khandekar for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1244/2020 and for Respondent No.6 in Writ Petition No.792/2019 and Mr.Ashutosh A. Kumbhakoni, learned Advocate General for the State. So also, Mr. Shashank Shubham, Mr. A. A. Naik, Mr. Lalit Kumar S. Mahajan, Mr. Amol Kakade, Mr. Ravindra Ade and Mr. B. B. Latkar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners in respective Writ Petitions. 12. Mr.Godbole, learned Advocate submits that the Savitribai Phule University, Pune has submitted the proposal dtd. 25/10/2010. He submits that the Maharashtra Non Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code (Revised Pay Scales to non teaching Staffs) Rules 2009 were notified. This was done on account of different universities having different pay scales for similarly placed employees. It is submitted that despite acceptance of the proposal of the Respondent Pune University and despite notification of the 2009 Rules, due to restrictions imposed by the Finance Department, the Pune University was unable to fill-up the posts of Group-C and Group-D employees. On account of the same, Respondent No.6 University sent a proposal dtd. 25/10/2010 to the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Higher and Technical Education. It was proposed that since filling of posts of Group-C and Group-D was not being permitted, the nomenclature of the existing sanctioned posts could be changed so that the employees can take up additional responsibilities. This change can be occasioned without changing the number of sanctioned posts. The proposal dtd. 25/10/2010 of Pune University was sanctioned under the Government Resolution dtd. 2/11/2010. On 8/2/2011 once again the Pune University submitted a proposal for change in nomenclature of staff (post). The same was sanctioned under Government Resolution dtd. 18/2/2011. Thereafter again on 28/8/2012 the Pune University submitted proposal for change in nomenclature of staff. The same was sanctioned under Government Resolution dtd. 3/11/2012. In view of the change of nomenclature and in accordance with the proposal of the Pune University which was accepted and sanctioned by the State Authorities, the Petitioners began to shoulder additional responsibilities as per the revised nomenclature and staffing pattern. 13. The State of Maharashtra, abruptly, on 17/12/2018 published the impugned Government Resolution thereby repealing Government Resolutions dtd. 3/11/2012. In view of the change of nomenclature and in accordance with the proposal of the Pune University which was accepted and sanctioned by the State Authorities, the Petitioners began to shoulder additional responsibilities as per the revised nomenclature and staffing pattern. 13. The State of Maharashtra, abruptly, on 17/12/2018 published the impugned Government Resolution thereby repealing Government Resolutions dtd. 2/11/2010, 18/2/2011 and 3/11/2012 under which the proposal of Respondent No.6 University to change the nomenclature and assign additional duties to the existing staff was accepted. The effect of these three Government Resolutions was sought to be recalled. The amount paid to the Petitioners and other employees were sought to be recovered. On 1/1/2019, the Government Resolution was issued and in-principle approval was granted to 7th Pay Commission Recommendation. In the said Government Resolution also excess payment was directed to be recovered from the employees, existing and retired. On the basis of the impugned Government Resolution, the Pune University issued circular on 9/1/2019 by virtue of which the employees of Pune University including the Petitioners were informed that the revised salary would be paid as per the Government Resolution dtd. 7/10/2009. The learned Advocate submits that no show cause notice or opportunity of being heard was provided to the Petitioners and the employees, before issuing the impugned Government Resolution. The recovery of amount paid to the employees is penal in nature. The Government Resolutions dtd. 2/11/2010, 18/2/2011 and 3/11/2012 were passed and issued after due consultation with the necessary stake holders including the Finance Department. Mr.Godbole, the learned Counsel submits that on 10/9/2001, the Finance Department of the Government of Maharashtra issued Government Resolution regarding creation of posts, recruitment and revival of lapsed posts etc. Clause 2 of the said Government Resolution provides that except in cases where there is a specific approval by the Council of Ministers, there will be restriction for creation of new posts. Clause 2.3 provides for creation of new posts, initial approval of Planning Department followed by approval of Finance Department should be taken in respect of the posts under specific schemes. The said clause is not applicable for the post of University employees. Clause 2.4 provides that concurrence of Finance Department shall be obtained and thereafter proposal shall be placed before the High Power Committee. The said clause is not applicable for the post of University employees. Clause 2.4 provides that concurrence of Finance Department shall be obtained and thereafter proposal shall be placed before the High Power Committee. Clause 2.6 provides that once proposal is accepted by the High Power committee, it will not be necessary to obtain approval of the Ministry unless the scale of the post is having a pay scale of Rs.12, 000.0016, 500 and above. Clause 6 provides that for the purpose of taking review of staffing pattern, the Council of Ministers has authorised High Power Committee to take decision. It is further submitted that on 1/7/2004, the Higher and Technical Education Department issued Government Resolution granting permission to fill up 90% posts of Backward Category and 50% open category. On 3/12/2008 Nagpur Bench of this Court issued directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.2216 of 2007 to finalize staffing pattern of the Universities in the State. On 6/4/2009, the Aurangabad Bench of this Court issued similar directions in Writ Petition No.8067/2006. 14. In view of these directions and with a view to meet all problems of deficit staff in Universities, the staffing pattern of all non agricultural universities was fixed by issuing Government Resolution by Higher and Technical Education Department. The said Government Resolution refers to the staffing pattern being approved by the High Power Committee constituted under Government Resolution dtd. 10/9/2001. Clause 8 of the said Government Resolution specifically refers that it has been issued pursuant to the concurrence of the Finance Department and the approval of the High Power Committee. 15. The schedule of Government Resolution dtd. 6/7/2009 contains list of nine universities. In Shivaji University, the Government had also approved 861 posts which were reduced to 644 posts. The Rules 2009 is a subordinate piece of legislation and has been issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department. These Rules are made applicable from 1/1/2006. The list of existing pay scales is given in Annexure-I of the said Rules. Explanation 2 is relevant and states that non teaching staff of Universities, considering the prescribed educational qualification, duties and responsibilities in some cadres, though the nomenclature is different, they have been clubbed in column No.2 of the Schedule and after fixing the pay according to the present grade in column No.3, the revised pay band and grade pay shown in column No.4 and 5 should be applicable. 16. The Shivaji University on 27/9/2010 sent a proposal for increasing the post from 644 to 748. Under Government Resolution dtd. 13/10/2010, the Higher and Technical Education Department issued Government Resolution regarding sanction for creation of 644 posts in Shivaji University and the pay scales for the same. These posts were approved under Government Resolution dtd. 6/7/2009. On 18/2/2011, Shivaji University submitted proposal for modification of Government Resolution dtd. 13/10/2010 seeking approval of the Government for the posts by substitution of Annexure-A of Government Resolution dtd. 13/10/2010 with Annexure-A of the proposal dtd. 18/2/2011 without any increase in the number of posts. The letter specifically indicates that the post of Library Assistant, Junior Clerk, Gardner and Sweeper which are presently existing in the University, have not been included in the staffing pattern under Government Resolution dtd. 13/10/2010 by oversight. The Higher and Technical Education Department issued Government Resolution pursuant to the aforesaid proposal of Shivaji University dtd. 24/11/2011 and sanctioned the staffing pattern substituting the staffing pattern indicated in the Government Resolution dtd. 13/10/2010 with change in the nomenclature and designation as indicated in Annexure-B. According to the learned Counsel, no illegality has been committed. The learned Counsel submits that even otherwise it is not the case of the fraud played by the employees. The University had followed the proper procedure and forwarded the proposal which was approved. It was not the case of creation of new posts. The learned Counsel, in the alternate submits that the recovery cannot be claimed for the amount paid in excess due to wrong pay fixation. Reliance is placed on the apex court judgment in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors., (2015) 4 SCC 334 . and Thomas Daniel v.State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536. 17. Mr.Apte, the learned Senior Advocate submits that in view of the increase in the number of affiliated colleges, recognized institutions and research centers of the University so also the number of students, the work load of the non teaching employees of the University increased to a large extent. 17. Mr.Apte, the learned Senior Advocate submits that in view of the increase in the number of affiliated colleges, recognized institutions and research centers of the University so also the number of students, the work load of the non teaching employees of the University increased to a large extent. Because of the ban imposed by the State Government on new recruitments it was not possible for the University to fill in the existing posts, as such, it became essential for the University to assign additional duties and responsibilities to the existing non teaching employees e.g. additional work and duties in the Grievance Committees constituted under Sec. 57 of the University Act, 1994 which were handled by the Deputy/Assistant Registrar of Academic Sec., were assigned to the Law Officer and therefore, he had to discharge additional duties and the responsibilities of the Grievance Committees. In view of the change of nomenclature of Law Officer as Dy. Registrar (Law and Grievance) and also for enhancement in the pay scale was required to be considered. 18. Some of the non teaching posts of different nomenclature and same duties and responsibilities have been clubbed and their nomenclature has been changed so as to avoid administrative inconvenience. However, due to change in the nomenclature and the revision of pay scale of the non teaching posts, the total number of posts sanctioned by the State Government under the Government Resolution dtd. 6/7/2009 remained unchanged. Under Sec. 5(60) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, it was obligatory for the University to comply with and carry out the directives issued by the State Government. Therefore, in compliance of the Government Resolutions dtd. 15/2/2010, 2/11/2010, 18/2/2011 and 3/11/2012, the University gave effect to the change in the nomenclature of the posts and fixed the pay of the existing employees as per the revised pay scale prescribed in the Government Resolutions. It is submitted that after the issuance of these Government Resolutions regarding change in nomenclature of non teaching employees and revision of pay scale, some non teaching employees have been appointed and some non teaching employees have also been promoted in accordance with the changed nomenclature and pay scales after following due process of law. It is submitted that after the issuance of these Government Resolutions regarding change in nomenclature of non teaching employees and revision of pay scale, some non teaching employees have been appointed and some non teaching employees have also been promoted in accordance with the changed nomenclature and pay scales after following due process of law. If the Government Resolutions are cancelled then newly appointed employees cannot be accommodated in another position as the eligibility criteria for appointment on the posts are different and therefore services of such employees will have to be terminated for no fault on their part. The cancellation of Government Resolutions dtd. 15/2/2010, 2/11/2010, 18/2/2011 and 3/11/2012 and restoring the original nomenclature of the posts is impracticable and it would also lead to tremendous changes in the roster which is already verified and approved by the State Government. The University has acted in consonance and compliance of the Government Resolution issued by the Government from time to time. 19. It is submitted by Mr.Topkar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that pursuant to the order of this Court a committee was constituted to investigate the contentions. The Committee has conducted investigation and filed the report. It is recorded by the Committee that 250 employees out of 644 sanctioned strength of 5 Universities have been benefited by the Government Resolution dtd. 24/2/2011 and the State exchequer has been affected. However, there is nothing in the report or on record of the Committee which supports the loss to the State exchequer of Rs.7, 71, 14, 000.00 (Rs. Seven Crores Seventy One Lacs Fourteen Thousand only). The said figure is erroneous and wrong. According to the Respondents also only 250 employees of 5 Universities have been benefited from the Government Resolution dtd. 24/2/2011. There is no finding of fraud on the part of the University staff or the officials issuing Government Resolution dtd. 24/2/2011. 20. It is further submitted that the contention of the State that the employees have executed undertaking to refund the amount if it is found that excess payments are made to them, is incorrect. 21. It is submitted by Mr. Saranath, the learned Advocate, that the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.793 of 2022 were appointed as Assistants or were promoted to the post of Assistants in the Pune University. All the Petitioners had initially joined as Assistants (General) or Assistants (Accounts). The same was class-III post. 21. It is submitted by Mr. Saranath, the learned Advocate, that the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.793 of 2022 were appointed as Assistants or were promoted to the post of Assistants in the Pune University. All the Petitioners had initially joined as Assistants (General) or Assistants (Accounts). The same was class-III post. From Assistants, many of them were promoted to Senior Assistants (Class-III post) further promoted to Assistant Sec. Officer (ClassIII) and some of them to Sec. Officer. In the present case the employees were restored to their original post in the Assistant Grades as they were wrongly given redesignation as clerk while granting 6th pay commission. The Pune University was the only University which had only sanctioned posts of Assistants and Senior Assistants. The State of Maharashtra revised the pay scale as per the 5th Pay Scale of Assistant and other promotional posts. The State of Maharashtra before accepting the 6th pay scheme, set up a committee to conduct a detailed survey of the staff of the Universities within the State of Maharashtra. It recommended the staffing pattern of the Universities in the State of Maharasthra. The recommendations of Saharia Committee were approved under the Government Resolution dtd. 6/7/2009. Under Government Resolution dtd. 27/8/2009, the State Government mistakenly approved the staffing pattern proposed by the University by classifying the posts of Assistant as Junior Clerks and Senior Assistants as Senior Clerks. The Respondent State, under Ordinance dtd. 7/10/2009 accepted the 6th pay scale and while revising the pay scale wrongfully considered the posts of Assistants as Junior Clerks and Senior Assistants as Senior Clerks. The pay scale of the Clerk was lower than that of Assistants in the 6th pay scheme. The University, under proposal dtd. 8/2/2011 sought rectification of pay scale of the Assistants as per the 6th pay scheme and under the Government Resolution dtd. 18/2/2011 the said mistake was rectified and placed the Petitioners in the pay scale for the post of Assistants as per 6th pay scale. The separate posts of Clerk were introduced in the Respondent University for the first time in the Department of Pali in the year 2012. 22. Mr. Narvankar, the learned Advocate for the Shivaji University submits that for the purpose of pay fixation, the guidance and the approval is obtained from the Joint Director and Senior Auditor. The separate posts of Clerk were introduced in the Respondent University for the first time in the Department of Pali in the year 2012. 22. Mr. Narvankar, the learned Advocate for the Shivaji University submits that for the purpose of pay fixation, the guidance and the approval is obtained from the Joint Director and Senior Auditor. The procedure for pay fixation at the time of applicability of 6th Pay Commission was followed, as laid down in Rule 3(5) Explanation 2 of the Notification dtd. 7/10/2009. The State Government, under Government Resolution dtd. 6/7/2009 sanctioned revised staffing pattern of 644 non-teaching posts for Shivaji University. 23. Pursuant to the said Government Resolution, the University has submitted post-wise proposal to the Government. Upon submission of the proposal, the Government issued Government Resolution dtd. 13/10/2010. In the said Government Resolution, there were some minor glitches like absence of the details of the posts stipulated, variance/deficiency in sanctioning the number of posts and existing posts. Therefore, on 18/2/2011 the Respondent University sent revised proposal to the Government. Pursuant to the revised proposal by the University, the State issued Government Resolution dtd. 24/2/2011. In the said Government Resolution also the staffing pattern, pursuant to the Government Resolution dtd. 6/7/2009 in respect of 644 non teaching posts is approved. No additional posts were created. Under Government Resolution dtd. 24/2/2011, the non teaching staffing pattern consisting 644 regular posts and 54 supernumerary posts were approved for the Shivaji University. In the said staffing pattern, some designations along with their pay scales / pay bands were revised in consonance with 5th and 6th Pay Commission. The Government Authorities approved revised pay scale and the salaries paid accordingly. The University has undertaken and followed the procedure, roster, promotions and completed the recruitment procedure in respect of the officers / employees in accordance with Government Resolution dtd. 24/2/2011. Government Resolution dtd. 24/2/2011 is acted upon. It would have serious implications, in the event the benefits under the Government Resolution dtd. 24/2/2011 are taken away. The revised pay scales are approved by the Government Authorities. The Joint Director of Higher Education by his letter dtd. 16/5/2012 addressed to the Shivaji University and communicated that the designations and the pay scales of non teaching posts of Shivaji University are revised as per the Government Resolution dtd. 24/2/2011 and accordingly pay fixation charts were prepared and submitted to the University. The Joint Director of Higher Education by his letter dtd. 16/5/2012 addressed to the Shivaji University and communicated that the designations and the pay scales of non teaching posts of Shivaji University are revised as per the Government Resolution dtd. 24/2/2011 and accordingly pay fixation charts were prepared and submitted to the University. All the Rules, Regulations and Mandates are scrupulously followed by the University. It is further submitted that the beneficiaries of Government Resolution dtd. 24/2/2011 are enormous who are nowhere connected with the internal working of the Government and not privy to any of the functioning. No fraud has been committed by the University or the beneficiaries. All the decisions were taken with the requisite approval of the Departments of the Government of Maharashtra and no objection whatsoever was raised at any point of time to any of the decisions taken. The reversal of benefits would militate against the principle of fairness and also against the settled principle of equity and doctrine of legitimate expectations. The payments made cannot be recovered. 24. Mr. Surve and Mr. Deshmukh, the learned Advocates for the Petitioners employed with Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University submit that the posts of Senior Assistant is in existence with Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University since the establishment of the University. The Petitioners therein are appointed as Senior Assistants since the very inception. The post of Senior Assistant is duly sanctioned under the University as can be seen from the Appendix-I, Statute 275. The feeder cadre of the post of Senior Assistant is Junior Assistant. The posts of Junior Assistant and Senior Assistant were sanctioned and were granted the pay scale and pay band w.e.f. 1/1/1996. In each and every Pay Commission, the post of Senior Assistant is categorized in Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University. It is submitted that even prior to Government Resolution dtd. 7/4/2011 Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University had published advertisement on 5/3/2003 inviting Applications to fill up the post of Senior Assistant. This was, in fact, for the post of Assistant which was very much sanctioned and is in existence since 1974. As per Government Resolution dtd. 6/7/2009, the Government approved the revised staffing pattern of non teaching posts. As per the directions of the State of Maharashtra, a detailed proposal for staffing pattern was submitted. Dr. This was, in fact, for the post of Assistant which was very much sanctioned and is in existence since 1974. As per Government Resolution dtd. 6/7/2009, the Government approved the revised staffing pattern of non teaching posts. As per the directions of the State of Maharashtra, a detailed proposal for staffing pattern was submitted. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University submitted a detailed proposal to the State Government for grant of approval and in view of that only 73 posts of Senior Assistants were proposed to be sanctioned by amalgamating various posts of Senior Assistant, Record Keepers, Account Clerks and Head Typists, which were carrying same pay scale of 4000-6000. Upon proposal submitted by the University for sanction of post, Respondent No.1 issued Government Resolution dtd. 17/9/2009, however, an error was committed in the said Government Resolution by mentioning the post of Senior Assistant as a Senior Clerk. In view of the said mistake, Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, by its communication dtd. 30/4/2010 and 9th / 10/3/2011 requested the State Government to carry out necessary corrections in the nomenclature of the post of Senior Assistant sanctioned under Government Resolution dtd. 17/9/2009. Respondent No.1 had extended the revised pay band of 5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs.2800.00 to the post of Senior Assistant under the Rules of 2009. Surprisingly, the same post of Senior Assistant in the Mumbai University was getting higher pay band of 9300-34800 with higher grade pay of Rs.4300..00 In view of the same, the Respondents issued Government Resolution dtd. 7/4/2011 approving the modification to the revised staffing pattern of Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University sanctioned under Government Resolution dtd. 17/9/2009 and re-designating the post of Senior Clerk as Senior Assistant and extending the pay band of 9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4800.00. As such, the injustice caused to the persons who were working as Senior Clerk were promoted as Senior Assistant under Government Resolution dtd. 7/4/2011. In view of the Government Resolution dtd. 7/4/2011, the Petitioners started getting the revised pay scale of 9300- 34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4800.00. All these Petitioners were either appointed as Junior Assistant or promoted as Senior Assistant from the feeder cadre of Junior Assistant. Some of the Petitioners got promotion to the post of Senior Assistant from the feeder post of Junior Assistant upon increase in number of posts in the cadre of Senior Assistant. All these Petitioners were either appointed as Junior Assistant or promoted as Senior Assistant from the feeder cadre of Junior Assistant. Some of the Petitioners got promotion to the post of Senior Assistant from the feeder post of Junior Assistant upon increase in number of posts in the cadre of Senior Assistant. Even otherwise, the persons working as Junior Assistant would have got promoted as Senior Assistant irrespective of the Governments Resolution that have been set aside. 25. It is further submitted in the alternate by the learned Advocate that even if Government Resolution dtd. 17/12/2018 is upheld still the same would apply from the date of its issuance and not prior to it, meaning thereby, no recovery could be effected from the Petitioners of the amounts of the salary received by them on the basis of higher pay band of 9300-34800 with GP of 4800/-. No error was committed by the State while issuing the Government Resolution dtd. 7/4/2011. 26. Mr.Mahajan, the learned Advocate for the employees of the North Maharashtra University submits that under Government Resolution dtd. 6/7/2009 the strength of the employees were decreased to 407 of the University as against the sanctioned 460 posts. It is after accord from the Finance Department the benefits of 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. 1/1/2006 were made applicable vide Notification dtd. 7/10/2009. Pursuant to the directions under the Government Resolution dtd. 6/7/2009, the University has submitted the proposal before the State Government for fixation of the staffing pattern of the non teaching posts. The revised proposal was submitted on 6/10/2010 by the University. Under the revised proposal, a request was made to the State Government to consolidate the post and to change the designations of the employees possessed with more work to one employee, so that the Government would not be required to sanction more posts to Respondent No.7 University and the funds of the Government would be saved. For example, the University requested the State Government to change the designation of Law Officer to Dy. Registrar (Law/Right to Information). By changing the designation of this post, the University has given the work of Information Officer to Law Officer, in addition to the works which were already bestowed with him. So, now, the Dy. Law Officer (Law/Right to Information) is discharging the duties of two posts as a Law Officer and the Information Officer. Registrar (Law/Right to Information). By changing the designation of this post, the University has given the work of Information Officer to Law Officer, in addition to the works which were already bestowed with him. So, now, the Dy. Law Officer (Law/Right to Information) is discharging the duties of two posts as a Law Officer and the Information Officer. The change in designation of one employee would discharge the work-load of two employees. The University requested the State for pay fixation of the employee as per the 6th Pay Commission. The proposal is forwarded by the University to the State Government after getting concurrence from the Managing Council and Vice Chancellor. After receiving the proposal on 6/10/2010, the State kept the same before the competent authority. The competent authority scrutinized the proposal. After satisfying that there would not be creation of more posts and that in order to have smooth functioning of the University it would be just and proper to sanction the proposal, the authority, after following due procedure, has decided to sanction the same. After following due procedure and upon receipt of sanction from Finance Department, Government Resolution dtd. 26/10/2010 was published thereby restructuring the pay fixation of the Petitioners and similarly situated employees of North Maharashtra University. Since the fixation of pay in the year 2010, the Petitioners are receiving the salaries as per the fixation made pursuant to the Government Resolution dtd. 26/10/2010. One employee is discharging the duties of two pots. There is also change of designation and change of work. The Petitioners have accepted their designations and bestowed the responsibilities since 2010. Some of them have retired and some of them are at the verge of retirement. The impugned resolution would be causing hardship. 27. It is stand of the employees of the Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University that the Higher Level Secretariat, after following due process finalized the staffing pattern of non teaching employees of the University and as such there was no need to obtain sanction from the Cabinet of the State Government and the same shall be required only if new posts providing for higher pay scale than 12000-16500 are created. The Government Resolution dtd. 10/9/2001 also provided that the Institution shall be at liberty to decide the working or functioning of the posts. In view of that there was no need to refer the Government Resolution dtd. 22/11/2011 to the Finance Department. The Government Resolution dtd. 10/9/2001 also provided that the Institution shall be at liberty to decide the working or functioning of the posts. In view of that there was no need to refer the Government Resolution dtd. 22/11/2011 to the Finance Department. Even the Reference No.270/2009 dtd. 2/5/2009 of Finance Department is referred in the Government Resolution. The Government Resolution dtd. 22/11/2011 was duly acted upon by the Finance Department of the State Government. In view of that Government Resolution the University has forwarded a proposal for release of salary of non teaching employees to the Department of Higher Education. Salaries are released only after due satisfaction of the authority of the Finance Department. The Finance Department, at no point of time raised objection to the Government Resolution dtd. 22/11/2011. No new post is created by the High Level Secretariat Committee which provides pay scale higher than 12000- 16500. The change in the nomenclature of the post and pay scale is in conformity with the Maharashtra Non Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code (Revised Pay Scales to non teaching Staffs) Rules 2009. It was notified by the State Government under Notification dtd. 7/10/2009. There are many Government Resolutions passed by the State Government under the informal reference No.270/2009 dtd. 2/5/2009 of the Finance Department which are treated as valid decision by the State Government. It is submitted that the impugned Government Resolution dtd. 17/12/2018 suffers from vice of arbitrariness, as the resolutions in favour of the Bombay University, Nagpur University, Solapur University, Gondwana University are passed under informal reference No.270/2009 dtd. 2/5/2009. It is submitted that the Government Resolution of the year 2011 has been acted upon. For more than 7 years, the salaries are paid as per the pay scale. Additional liabilities are incurred by the Petitioners considering their salaries. Government Resolution dtd. 17/12/2018 encroaches upon the right to live with dignity, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Council of Ministers are permitted to delegate the powers to amend the decision to a Committee. It is further the case of the petitioners that the Rules of Business are directory. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Chandrakant Sakharam Karkhanis & Ors. Vs. State of Maharasthra & Ors., AIR 1977 Bombay 193. 28. It is further the case of the petitioners that the Rules of Business are directory. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Chandrakant Sakharam Karkhanis & Ors. Vs. State of Maharasthra & Ors., AIR 1977 Bombay 193. 28. All the learned Advocates for the Petitioners relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (supra) to submit that recovery cannot be claimed. They also relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Meghraj Annasaheb Pandit & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra to which one of us (Acting Chief Justice) was party, in Writ Petition No.5363 of 2021 with connected Writ Petitions to contend that, in similar cases, this Court had held that recovery cannot be claimed, if there is fault on the part of the Government in taking sanction / concurrence of the Finance Department. 29. Mr. Anturkar, the learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner in PIL (St) No.5919 of 2019 submits that the Government Resolution impugned in the Writ Petition filed by the employees of the University is rightly issued. All the Government Resolutions cancelled pursuant to the said Government Resolution dtd. 17/12/2018 and 16/2/2019 were obtained by fraud. The Government Resolutions issued by the Government thereby redesignating the posts and sanctioning higher pay scales were result of fraud. The same would be clear from the notings made before the said Government Resolution. 30. The learned Senior Advocate submits that when the proposals were received for the staffing pattern and revising the staffing pattern, the Principal Secretary had made an endorsement "does it require approval of the Finance Department ?". The Desk officer replied at the end of the noting that "there is neither change in the number of employees as per the staffing pattern nor there is any additional financial burden on the Government". On the said basis, the Government Resolutions are issued in respect of various Universities. Thus, a false representation was made that there is no change in the number of employees as per the staffing pattern and that there will not be any additional burden on the Government. On the basis of the same, the Government Resolutions were issued. On the said basis, the Government Resolutions are issued in respect of various Universities. Thus, a false representation was made that there is no change in the number of employees as per the staffing pattern and that there will not be any additional burden on the Government. On the basis of the same, the Government Resolutions were issued. Upon information being sought by the Petitioner of PIL, it was communicated that File No.593 of 2010 is not traceable and/or that the files have been destroyed. In the Government Resolution dtd. 18/2/2011 reference is made to the letter dtd. 2/5/2009. When the Petitioner, in PIL filed an Application under the Right to Information Act, the Petitioner is informed by the Government on 12/12/2012 that there is no Committee and there is no such letter dtd. 2/5/2009. Without concurrence of the Finance Department a false representation is made that the Finance Department has given an approval. The Finance Ministry has given concurrence only insofar as Akrutibandh is concerned by Government Resolution dtd. 6/7/2009. The Reference No.265 of the Finance Ministry was only pertaining to Akrutibandh approval and Reference No.270 was erroneous. The learned Senior Advocate submits that the High Court's judgments have been conveniently used to create impression that whatever is done under Government Resolution of 2010, before Government Resolution of the year 2018 of which the Petitioner in PIL seeks implementation, an impression is sought to be created that the Government Resolutions were issued as per the directions of the High Court. 31. Reference is given in Government Resolution dtd. 6/7/2009 to the order of the High Court at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.8067 of 2006 dtd. 6/4/2009 and/ or judgment of the Nagpur High Court in Writ Petition No.2216 of 2007 dtd. 3/12/2008. There is nothing in these orders of the High Court which direct the Government to give re-designation of the posts and to increase the pay scale. The learned Senior Counsel, to illustrate, referred to Sandip Mahadev Bhujbal. He was working in Class-III (Technical Assistant) with pay scale of Rs.70, 000.00. He has been redesignated as Research Associate (Class-I Post) with pay scale of Rs.1, 19, 480.00. This was even after the Division Bench of this Court in February 2020 directed that only recovery part is stayed and not the future implementation of Government Resolution dtd. 18/12/2018. He was working in Class-III (Technical Assistant) with pay scale of Rs.70, 000.00. He has been redesignated as Research Associate (Class-I Post) with pay scale of Rs.1, 19, 480.00. This was even after the Division Bench of this Court in February 2020 directed that only recovery part is stayed and not the future implementation of Government Resolution dtd. 18/12/2018. The Division Bench of this Court on 5/9/2022 directed Savitribai Phule University to produce the resolution passed by it. This was in the context that the Petitioner in PIL had grievance that no resolution has been passed by the Management Council and at Registrar level the proposal was prepared. Pursuant thereto, compilation of documents was produced where the resolutions of the Management Council dtd. 4/12/2012 and 20/11/2011 are shown to have passed i.e. after the resolutions which were cancelled by the later resolutions of which the implementation is sought by the PIL litigant. This shows that there was no prior resolution passed by the Management Council of the University before the proposal was sent by the Registrar to the Desk Officer, Higher and Technical Education Department. The Savitribai Phule University was not having post of Assistant. However, the Petitioners of the said University were given wrong designation and thus their pay scale did not find mention in 5th and 6th pay commission. This is a case of fraud where papers are fabricated, files are lost and destroyed, false affidavit about the resolution of the University are filed before the High Court. 32. It is further submitted that some of the employees of the University have claimed that there was error in designation. Their original position from Arkrutibandh was either Junior Assistant or as Senior Assistant. By mistake, they have been shown as Junior Clerk or Senior Clerk and therefore they were provided with the lower pay scale. Therefore, the said defect was rectified by the Government Resolution dtd. 18/2/2011. The said statement is also untrue. Under Government Resolution dtd. 1/8/1979 the Government noted recommendations of the Bhole Commission and recommended the revised pay scales. All these Universities have been sanctioned post of Junior Clerk and Senior Clerk and not Junior Assistant and Senior Assistant. Therefore, the said defect was rectified by the Government Resolution dtd. 18/2/2011. The said statement is also untrue. Under Government Resolution dtd. 1/8/1979 the Government noted recommendations of the Bhole Commission and recommended the revised pay scales. All these Universities have been sanctioned post of Junior Clerk and Senior Clerk and not Junior Assistant and Senior Assistant. The learned Senior Counsel refers to the chart to submit that all the five Universities i.e. Bombay University, Shivaji University, Nagpur University, Pune University and Shivaji University were sanctioned the post for which pay scale is sanctioned by the Government as per 4th Pay Commission in the year 1979. The pay scale of Senior Assistant and Senior Clerk in Shivaji University was same. So also the pay scale for the post of Junior Assistant and Junior Clerk. Although the nomenclature differs, the pay sale remains the same. As such, the claim of the Petitioner that they were appointed either on the post of Junior Assistant or Senior Assistant, are entitled for higher pay scale, has no legal basis. The change in nomenclature is also made without approval of the Finance Department. As such all these persons are required to be reverted back to their original pay scale. Even if it is assumed that the Petitioners are appointed as Assistant they were given wrong designation as Clerk and subsequently given the correct designation, still the same has to be done by following proper procedure known to law by the Management Council passing the resolution. The Registrar of the University should thereafter forward the proposal to the Secretary of the Higher and Technical Education Department only thereafter it should be sent to the Finance Department and the approval of the Finance Department ought to be taken. 33. According to the learned Senior Counsel, as the Government Resolution, pursuant to which the Petitioners are paid the higher pay scale, is obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, the recovery deserves to be claimed from them. 34. The learned Advocate General submits that while issuing Government Resolution dtd. 27/8/2009, the Desk Officer incorporated the new pay scales for various posts set out therein without concurrence of the Finance Department. While granting such enhancement in the pay scales the Financial Rules and the Procedure provided in the Rules of Business are not followed. 34. The learned Advocate General submits that while issuing Government Resolution dtd. 27/8/2009, the Desk Officer incorporated the new pay scales for various posts set out therein without concurrence of the Finance Department. While granting such enhancement in the pay scales the Financial Rules and the Procedure provided in the Rules of Business are not followed. In the noting of the file, the concerned Desk Officer only mentioned that the sanction of the posts are within the limit of number of posts sanctioned vide Government Resolution dtd. 6/7/2009. However, did not mention that the financial burden is going to increase on account of the grant of enhanced pay scale. In fact, nothing is mentioned in the noting of the file and the text of the Government Resolutions as to the financial implications of such enhancement of the pay scales. The noting in the file suggests that only designations of the posts in issue are changed as if it was a cosmetic change. The learned Advocate General submits that under the Government Resolutions that are cancelled, the pay scales of non teaching staff from various Universities such as Savitribai Phule University, Pune, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Shivaji University, Kolhapur, North Marathwada University, Jalgaon, Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University, Amravati and Gondwana University, Gadchiroli have been increased substantially by giving them higher pay scale merely by changing the nomenclature or designation of the posts without bringing about any change in the nature of duties, work to be performed or responsibilities to be discharged. 35. It is contended by the learned Advocate General that the 5th Pay was made applicable to the Non Agricultural Universities in the State by Government Resolution dtd. 4/2/1999 and the said 5th Pay was made applicable to the employees of the Non Agricultural Universities and affiliated colleges from 1/1/1996. As per the Government Resolution dtd. 4/2/1999 revised pay scale was fixed in consonance with the 5th Pay Commission by the State Government in respect of all Non Agricultural Universities and affiliated colleges in the State of Maharashtra. The Government Resolution dtd. 6/7/2009 is issued for fixing staffing pattern in respect of 9 Universities. The Universities were instructed to submit the post-wise proposals as per the sanctioned new staffing pattern so that the post-wise order could be issued. The Universities were also instructed to fill up the vacant posts only after issuing of the Government Resolution in that regard. 6/7/2009 is issued for fixing staffing pattern in respect of 9 Universities. The Universities were instructed to submit the post-wise proposals as per the sanctioned new staffing pattern so that the post-wise order could be issued. The Universities were also instructed to fill up the vacant posts only after issuing of the Government Resolution in that regard. The Government Resolution dtd. 6/7/2009 nowhere deals with the pay scale issue. In the Government Resolution dtd. 6/7/2009, the concurrence of Finance Department EOR No.270/2009/visu-1 dtd. 2/5/2009 is mentioned. However, the said number is incorrect. The Finance department had given concurrence to the said proposal by EOR No.265/2009/visu-1 dtd. 28/4/2009. The said EOR ought to have been mentioned in Government Resolution dtd. 6/7/2009. The same EOR i.e. incorrectly mentioned in Government Resolution dtd. 6/7/2009 is later-on mentioned in all subsequent Government Resolutions dtd. 2/11/2010, 18/2/2011, 3/11/2012, 7/4/2011, 24/2/2011, 26/10/2010, 22/11/2011 and 15/2/2012. 36. The learned Advocate General contends that the Universities in issue submitted their detailed proposals for staffing pattern but the proposal submitted by 6 Universities were not in line with the extant Rules and Regulations. The proposals contained not only change in the nomenclature of some posts but also further proposed to increase the pay scales as well. In some cases, the nomenclature of posts were retained but increase in pay scale was proposed. Some Universities revised their proposal more than once. The Government Resolution dtd. 27/8/2009 was issued in respect of the Savitribai Phule University, Pune showing the postwise staffing pattern pay scale. At the time of issuing Government Resolution dtd. 27/8/2009 the concerned officer from Higher and Technical Education Department changed the pay scale of 5th Pay of non-teaching posts of Savitribai Phule University, Pune by increasing the figures shown in 5th Pay Scale Government Resolution dtd. 4/2/1999 and figures shown in staffing pattern Government Resolution dtd. 6/7/2009. In Government Resolution dtd. 27/8/2009, 19 names of posts from non-Basavraj teaching staff are also changed and their pay scales are also shown as increased far more than sanctioned in the 5th Pay Commission Government Resolution dtd. 4/2/1999 and the staffing pattern Government Resolution dtd. 6/7/2009. 37. The Government Resolution dtd. 5/9/2009 is issued for the benefit of non teaching staff of Amravati University and Government Resolution dtd. 17/9/2009 for Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar, Marathwada University, Aurangabad. 4/2/1999 and the staffing pattern Government Resolution dtd. 6/7/2009. 37. The Government Resolution dtd. 5/9/2009 is issued for the benefit of non teaching staff of Amravati University and Government Resolution dtd. 17/9/2009 for Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar, Marathwada University, Aurangabad. In these Government Resolutions also the concerned Desk Officer has shown 5th Pay Scale of non teaching posts of Amravati University and Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar, Marathwada University, Aurangabad by increasing the figures of the pay scale shown in the 5th Pay Scale Government Resolution dtd. 4/2/2009 and figures shown in staffing pattern Government Resolution dtd. 6/7/2009. 38. Under Notification dtd. 7/10/2009 post-wise revised pay scale was fixed as per the 6th Pay Commission and post-wise Schedule of pay scale was also declared along with the said resolution. In the said Government Resolution, there is a column shown as "Existing and Special Pay if any" and in that column, the 5th Pay Scale is shown much higher than the actual and existing pay scale which was already revised by Government Resolution dtd. 4/2/1999 at the time of fixing 5th Pay Commission. At the time of fixing staffing pattern, Government Resolution dtd. 6/7/2009 issued by the Higher and Technical Department, the pay scale was shown as per the Government Resolution dtd. 4/2/1999 but at the time of fixing the pay scale of the 6th Pay Commission, the existing pay scale was shown much more than the earlier pay scale fixed by Government Resolution dtd. 4/2/1999 and shown in Government Resolution dtd. 6/7/2009. 39. Under the Government Resolution dtd. 4/12/2009, the Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai issued Government Resolution thereby granting post wise staffing pattern in respect of Jalgaon University and on 13/10/2010 granted post-wise staffing pattern of Shivaji University, Kolhapur. In the said Government Resolution also the Desk Officer had shown higher pay scale as already shown in Government Resolution dtd. 7/10/2009 at the time of declaring 6th Pay Commission benefits. 40. The learned Advocate General further submits that after issuing Government Resolution dtd. 7/10/2009 the implementing the 6th Pay Commission and defining post-wise pay scale for all Non Agricultural Universities in the State, some Universities submitted proposals with the State Government for changing the nomenclature (name of post) without there being any change in the duties and the responsibilities. The proposals for changing the nomenclature are received from 6 Universities viz; < WXY>i. Savitribai Phule University Pune dtd. The proposals for changing the nomenclature are received from 6 Universities viz; < WXY>i. Savitribai Phule University Pune dtd. 26/8/2012 (IInd proposal) ii. Aurangabad University dtd. 10/3/2011 (IInd proposal) iii. Jalgaon University dtd. 6/10/2010 iv. Shivaji University Kolhapur dtd. 18/2/2011 v. Gondwana University Gadchiroli dtd. 14/12/2011 vi. Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University, Amravati dtd. 19/10/2011.</ WXY> 41. In respect of these Universities, the Higher and Technical Education Department, by Government Resolutions dtd. 26/10/2010, 2/11/2010, 18/2/2011, 24/2/2011, 7/4/2011, 16/5/2011, 22/9/2011, 15/2/2012 and 3/11/2012 declared nomenclature (new name of Posts). 42. Since there was difference in pay scale of non teaching employees of Pune and other Universities, the representations were made by other Universities for changing the nomenclature of the posts. The Finance Department, vide official note dtd. 16/10/2017 recommended to inspect the pay scale of the non teaching staff of six Non Agricultural Universities which had obtained financial benefits by mere change in nomenclature of the posts and recommended to initiate action to recover the excess amount paid to the employees holding these posts. It also recommended that the nomenclature of the posts and pay scale in which changes were made illegally be recalled and set back to the original nomenclature and pay scale. It is further directed that unless and until their pay scale is recalled, not to implement and accord 7th Pay Commission scales to these employees. As per the recommendations of the Finance Department, the Department of Higher and Technical, after obtaining consent from the Concerned Ministry, issued Government Resolution dtd. 17/12/2018, impugned in these petitions. 43. The learned Advocate General submits that as per the directions issued by Government Resolution dtd. 17/12/2018, a Special Squad has been formed comprising of Dy. Director, Accounts and Audit Services, Assistant Director, Audit and two other Officers. The Special Squad investigated the matter and by the interim report submitted recommendations such as; (a) There are 4 GR's issued by the then Desk Officer and more number of posts have been given increased pay scale and that all these GR's need to be cancelled. (b) By various GR's higher pay scales have been given to various posts from the above mentioned 6 universities. Whereas, the remaining other universities' employees have been continued with the pay scale, which is lower than these 6 universities. Therefore, it has caused discrimination among the university employees. (b) By various GR's higher pay scales have been given to various posts from the above mentioned 6 universities. Whereas, the remaining other universities' employees have been continued with the pay scale, which is lower than these 6 universities. Therefore, it has caused discrimination among the university employees. Therefore, the Government has to take decision to cancel all such Government Resolutions, which are not cancelled by GR dtd. 17/12/2018." 44. The learned Advocate General submits that the facts and circumstances on record would demonstrate that the non teaching staff, by joining hands with the then Desk Officer of Higher and Technical Education Department and other Officials of the State Government practiced fraud on the public exchequer and got increased their pay scales without any change at all in their duties and/or work or responsibilities. Huge public money has been siphoned by such dubious method and by misleading the Higher Government Officials. So also by keeping in dark almost all the higher ups, more particularly, the entire Finance Department. The inquiries are being conducted in respect of the illegalities that have occurred in the matter. The process of framing the charge sheet against the concerned Officials who have been found prima facie guilty, is in progress. The Finance Department has also recommended the Higher and Technical Education Department to cancel the Government Resolutions issued without concurrence of the Finance Department and also recommended to take appropriate action against the responsible persons involved in the matter. As the benefits are obtained by the Petitioners by fraud, no protection can be granted to them in case of recovery. The learned Advocate General relies on the apex court judgment in the case of MRF Ltd. Vs. Manohar Parrikar & Ors., (2010) 11 SCC 374 . to contend that obtaining concurrence of the Finance Department wherever the financial implication is involved, is mandatory. The Rules of Business in that regard have to be followed. He also relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 12 SCC 333 .. The learned Advocate General submits that if excess salary is paid due to misrepresentation or fraud, then no protection will be granted from recovery. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 417 . The learned Advocate General submits that if excess salary is paid due to misrepresentation or fraud, then no protection will be granted from recovery. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 417 . The Petitioners have also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court at Aurangabad dtd. 20/1/2022 in the case of Meghraj Annasaheb Pandit and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra to which one of us (Acting Chief Justice) was party in Writ Petition No.5363 of 2021 with connected Writ Petitions to contend that the Petitioners would not know the procedure followed or whether the concurrence of the Finance Department is obtained or not and as such the recovery may not be ordered. The same judgment is relied on by the learned Advocate General and Mr.Anturkar, the learned Senior Advocate to suggest that this Court in the said judgment observed that doctrine of indoor management would not apply in case of fraud and misrepresentation. In the said judgment, it was also held that in the matter involving financial implications, the concurrence of the Finance Department is mandatory. 45. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned Advocates for the parties. 46. From the pleadings and the documents on record, it appears that the Government Resolutions issued from time to time in respect of 6 Universities pertaining to change in designation and pay scales from the year 2010 to 2012 were issued without obtaining approval and/or concurrence of the Finance Department. There cannot be a matter of debate that whenever financial implications are to take place, the concurrence of the Finance Department is mandatory, as provided under the Bombay Financial Rules, 1959 and Government Business Rules 1975. Reference can be had to the judgments of the apex court in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan (supra) and MRF Ltd. (supra). The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Meghraj Annasaheb Pandit (supra) to which one of us (Acting Chief Justice) was a party, after referring to the various decisions of the Apex Court, held that the Business Rules framed by the Government mandate that wherever a decision would involve the financial implication and/or financial burden upon the State, the concurrence of the Finance Department has to be obtained. Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Rules of Business framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India governing the function of the State require obtaining the concurrence and/or sanction of the Finance Department in the matter involving fiscal burden on the State. 47. The contention that the concurrence of the Finance Department was not necessary in view of Government Resolution dtd. 10/9/2001 is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. Clause 2.4 of the said Government Resolution provides that the concurrence of the Finance Department shall be obtained and thereafter the proposal shall be placed before the High Power Committee. Clause 2.6 provides that once the proposal is accepted by the High Power Committee, it will not be necessary to obtain approval of the Ministry unless the pay scale is more than 12000 and 16500 and above. On 1/7/2004, the Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai issued Government Resolution granting permission to fill up 90% of the backward category and 50% open category. The Government Resolution dtd. 10/9/2001 refers to the staffing pattern being approved by the High Power Committee constituted under the Government Resolution dtd. 10/9/2001. Clause 8 of the said Government Resolution specifically refers that it has been issued pursuant to the concurrence of the Finance Department and approval of the High Power Committee. 48. The said Government Resolution does not speak about the change of the designation of the post and the increase and /or refixation of pay scale. Whenever the increase in the pay scale is effectuated, the concurrence of the Finance Department would be imperative. 49. As the concurrence and approval of the Finance Department was not obtained while issuing the Government Resolutions those are cancelled under the impugned Government Resolution, the said action of the State cannot be faulted with. 50. Much emphasis is laid by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the change of designation is due to increase in work- load and/or there is no change in designation. However, the fact remains that the pay scales have been changed materially. It is also sought to be demonstrated by the Respondents that the pay scales have been changed with retrospective effect. Rule 156 of the Bombay Financial Rules, 1959 provides that the retrospective effect should not be given of the proposal for revision of pay except in very special circumstances. It is also sought to be demonstrated by the Respondents that the pay scales have been changed with retrospective effect. Rule 156 of the Bombay Financial Rules, 1959 provides that the retrospective effect should not be given of the proposal for revision of pay except in very special circumstances. Whenever retrospective effect is given to any such proposal, the reasons for the said, invariably, be specified in the sanction itself. The eight Government Resolutions issued for the six Universities those are cancelled under the impugned Government Resolution did not state the date of applicability. However, the Universities changed the designation of the posts and pay scale with retrospective effect i.e. from 1/1/1996 notionally and benefit was granted from 1/1/2006 and in any case prior to the Government Resolutions of the years 2010 to 2012. This anomaly is not explained by the Petitioners. 51. The Division Bench of this Court in its order dtd. 7/2/2020 had directed setting up of a Special Squad to consider all issues and facets of the controversy arising out of the impugned Government Resolution dtd. 17/12/2018. A Committee of six Officials viz. Sanjay S. Bhattacharjee, Senior Audit Officer, Shri Atul B. Jadhav, Assistant Audit Officer, Shri navin N. Sinha, Assistant Audit Officer, Shri Dinesh Kumar Tiwary, Assistant Audit Officer, Shri Santosh Kumar Mishra, Senior Auditor and Smt. Vandana V. Vengurlekar, Senior Auditor under the supervision of Shri Avinash S. Chavan, Dy. Accountant General was constituted by the Principal Accountant General (Audit) I, Maharashtra. The report is submitted to this court. The conclusion of the said report reads thus: < WXY>"Considering the written submissions of the petitioners, documents pertaining to pay fixation scrutinized at University, replies obtained from FD, HTED, DHE, JDHE, Accounts officers and University Officials, the Team has the following to submit: 1. The GRs pertaining to change in Designation and pay scales were issued without obtaining necessary approval / concurrence of the Finance Department as mandated by the Bombay Financial Rules, 1959 and Government Business Rules, 1975. 2. The upgradation of pay scales of posts was not as per the recommendations of State Pay Revision Committee Report 2008 (Vith pay commission - Hakim Committee Report), acceptance of recommendations by the Government as per the Pay Anomaly Committee recommendations. 3. The financial implications arising due to GRs relating to change in designation were not determined by HTED before issuing it. 4. 3. The financial implications arising due to GRs relating to change in designation were not determined by HTED before issuing it. 4. The Government resolutions for Change in designation were inconsistent with the Standard Code (revised pay rules of non-teaching employees) Rules, 2009 which was issued under Sec. 8(3) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. Sec. 8(3) of the Act prescribes that when such a code is made, it shall prevail over any subordinate legislation made under the Act. Hence, considering Sec. 8(3) of the Act, the Government resolutions issued in the form of padnam badal GRs can't override the Rules issued and notified in the form of Standard code. 5. Rule 155 of the Bombay Financial Rules, 1959 stipulates that the statutory rules made by the Governor have effect from the date on which they are passed. Further, Rule 156 stipulates that the retrospective effect should not be given to any proposal for revision of pay except in very special circumstances. Whenever retrospective effect is given to any such proposals, the reasons for the same should invariably be specified in the sanction itself. The eight GRs issued for the six universities did not mention the date of applicability. However, Universities changed the designation and pay scales of the posts with retrospective effect from 1/1/1996 considering the pay scales mentioned in the Annexure to these GRs. 6. Further, Explanation (2) to under Rule 3(5) was not present in the draft notification sent to Finance Department for approval but was inserted in the Notification dtd. 7/10/2009 after the approval of the Finance Department. 7. The Finance Department has not issued the unofficial reference number 270/09 dtd. 2/5/2009 of the Finance Department mentioned in 15 GR's at Sr.No.3 to 17 in GR dtd. 17/12/2018 (as per Government's affidavit in the WP 792 of 2019). 8. Although the provisions of pay fixation were not mentioned in the GRs, fixation was done in revised scales by the Registrar, JDHE's and Accounts Officers (Higher Education grants) of the concerned Universities. 9. One consistent grievance among the Petitioners is that the pay scales for comparable posts in other Non Agricultural Universities are higher. However, pay Anomaly Committee reports have pointed out that there are differences in mode of recruitment, educational qualification requirements, etc after considering the grievance of the non-teaching employees unions."</ WXY> 52. 9. One consistent grievance among the Petitioners is that the pay scales for comparable posts in other Non Agricultural Universities are higher. However, pay Anomaly Committee reports have pointed out that there are differences in mode of recruitment, educational qualification requirements, etc after considering the grievance of the non-teaching employees unions."</ WXY> 52. As per the interim report submitted by the Special Squad appointed pursuant to the Government Resolution dtd. 17/12/2018 and also report as per the Committee of the Special Squad appointed by this Court under order dtd. 7/2/2020, large scale changes in the pay scale and designation and that too with retrospective effect has taken place without the concurrence of the Finance Department. Some examples are also illustrated. In the cases where it is stated that the post of Assistants were sanctioned and those persons were appointed as Assistants since the very inception to them also the pay scales have been changed with retrospective effect. The same could not have been done without concurrence of the Finance Department. It is also brought on record that the Universities to whom the benefits of Government Resolutions were issued, had sanctioned post of Junior Clerk and Senior Clerk. The pay scale of the Senior Assistant and Senior Clerk in Shivaji University was the same, so also, the pay scale of the Junior Assistant and Junior Clerk. It was observed that though the nomenclature differs, still the pay scale of Junior Assistant and Junior Clerk, so also, the Senior Assistant and Senior Clerk was the same. However, the pay scales of those persons either as Senior Assistant or Junior Assistant have been enhanced with retrospective effect and that too without concurrence of the Finance Department. 53. The Special Squad appointed by this Court has observed that from the total service books produced 3073 (out of 4503 non teaching employees of five universities), the team noticed on testcheck that 1564 employees were benefited due to the implementation of the higher pay scales mentioned in the padnam badal GRs. The illustrations have been given in the report, the same reads thus: 54. It has been further observed by the Committee that the implementation of change in designation (padnam badal) has been done. In case of Savitribai Phule, Pune University, the change in 'designation' and 'number of posts' was approved vide Government Resolutions dtd. 2/11/2010, 18/2/2011 and 3/11/2012. The illustrations have been given in the report, the same reads thus: 54. It has been further observed by the Committee that the implementation of change in designation (padnam badal) has been done. In case of Savitribai Phule, Pune University, the change in 'designation' and 'number of posts' was approved vide Government Resolutions dtd. 2/11/2010, 18/2/2011 and 3/11/2012. The existing pay scales in the fifth pay scale were enhanced, the pay of the employees was refixed from 1/1/1996 notionally. The sixth pay scales equivalent to the enhanced fifth pay were also applied from 1/1/2006 and actual financial benefits were granted from 1/1/2006. In case of Shivaji University, Kolhapur, change in 'designation' and 'number of posts' was approved vide Government Resolution dtd. 24/2/2011. The notional fixation was done from 1/1/1996 and actual financial benefits given from 1/3/2012. In case of Kaviyatri Bahinabai Chaudhari, North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon, change in 'designation' and 'number of posts' was approved vide GR dtd. 26/10/2010 and notional fixation of pay was made from 1/1/1996. In case of Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar, Marathwada University, Aurangabad, change in 'designation' and 'number of posts' was approved vide GR dtd. 7/4/2011. The existing pay scales were enhanced and were notionally fixed from 1/1/1996. The financial benefits were however, allowed from 7/4/2011. In case of Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University, Amravati, change in 'designation' and 'number of posts' was approved vide GR dtd. 22/11/2011. The existing pay scale was enhanced and were fixed only from 1/1/2006. In case of Gondwana University, Gadchiroli, change in 'designation' and 'number of posts' was approved vide GR dtd. 15/2/2012. There were change in designation in 10 posts but their existing pay in the fifth pay and sixth pay were not enhanced. Only the post of peon which was carved out of posts of Chowkidar, Gardner, Sweeper and Engineering coolie were granted the higher grade pay of Rs.1600.00 instead of Rs.1300.00. Recruitment to these posts were done only after 15/2/2012 and the benefit of enhanced sixth pay accrued to them from their date of joining. 55. In light of that, it would not be possible to accept the contention of the Petitioners that the change in the pay scale and/or change in the nomenclature was legitimately done. The impugned Government Resolution does not suffer from any illegality. 56. The next contention is about the recovery. 55. In light of that, it would not be possible to accept the contention of the Petitioners that the change in the pay scale and/or change in the nomenclature was legitimately done. The impugned Government Resolution does not suffer from any illegality. 56. The next contention is about the recovery. According to the Petitioners, the Petitioners are not responsible for issuance of the Government Resolutions and that it is the University who had sent the proposals and sanctioned by the Higher and Technical Education Department. It would appear that the majority of the Petitioners are the beneficiaries of the Government Resolutions increasing their pay scales and the change of their designations. The same was not warranted in view of the facts and circumstances on record. These Petitioners are unduly benefited. As such, protection cannot be given to them. At the same time, recovery in lump-sum would be too inequitable. Reliance of the Petitioners in the case of Meghraj Annasaheb Pandit (supra) to which one of us (Acting Chief Justice) was a party, would not enure to the benefit of the Petitioners. In the said case, this Court had applied the Doctrine of Indoor Management in observing that the employees may not be responsible for the lapse in not obtaining the concurrence of the Finance Department. In the present case, the aforesaid facts and circumstances would not apply in view of the narration above except for those who have been appointed after the issuance of the Government Resolution with change of designation and revised pay scales. 57. Much reliance was placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. (Supra). In the said case, the Apex Court observed that benefit of non recovery cannot extend to employee merely on the ground that he was not accessory to mistake committed by the employer or was not guilty of furnishing any factually incorrect information or fraud or misrepresentation. The Apex Court, in that case, further observed that the order passed by the employer seeking recovery of monetary benefits wrongly extended to the employees, can only be interfered with, in cases where such recovery would result in a hardship of a nature, which would far outweigh, the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. The Apex Court, in that case, further observed that the order passed by the employer seeking recovery of monetary benefits wrongly extended to the employees, can only be interfered with, in cases where such recovery would result in a hardship of a nature, which would far outweigh, the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. The Apex Court laid down four parameters therein, such as; (i) recovery from employees belonging to Class III and Class IV, (ii) recovery from retired employees or employees who are due to retire within one year of order of recovery, (iii) recovery from employees to whom excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, and (iv) recovery in cases where employee is wrongfully required to discharge duties of higher post. 58. The Apex Court, in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors. (Supra) observed that any amount paid / received without authority of law, held, can always be recovered. Law imposes an obligation on payee to repay the money lest it would amount to unjust enrichment. In the said judgment, the Court also considered the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sayed Abdul Qadir Vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475 . 59. In the present case, it is not merely a case of wrong pay fixation, however, the revision in pay fixation arrived at without concurrence of the Finance Department. The revision of pay scale was without the authority under the law. The designations were changed with retrospective effect. The revision of pay scale was also with retrospective effect. Constantly, proposals for revision of pay scale with retrospective effect and change in designation were submitted by University and to the knowledge of the Petitioners. It cannot be said that it is iniquitous mistake of revision of pay with retrospective effect. In such case, it would be difficult to accept the contention that the recovery can never be claimed by the Respondents. 60. Perusal of the report submitted by the Committee appointed by this Court under order dtd. 7/2/2020, it would be manifest that there would be some candidates who may not have been unduly benefited. Persons unduly benefited cannot be granted relief. 60. Perusal of the report submitted by the Committee appointed by this Court under order dtd. 7/2/2020, it would be manifest that there would be some candidates who may not have been unduly benefited. Persons unduly benefited cannot be granted relief. As far as those persons who were not unduly benefited, but because of the illegality of the issuance of the Government Resolution on account of non obtaining the concurrence of the Finance Department, for them, the corrective steps can be undertaken and the benefit, as was, applicable to them can be extended by correcting the procedural deficiencies. It has also been brought on record that in some Universities, as per the changed designations new appointments are made. As far as new appointments are made the persons who are appointed after the issuance of the Government Resolutions from the year 2010 to 2012, they cannot be held responsible for issuance of the Government Resolution. The steps may be taken to accommodate those employees accordingly on the post available, because, those employees may have worked already for 4 to 5 years before issuance of the impugned Government Resolution. The State and the University shall take up such exercise at the earliest. 61. In view of the above discussion we pass the following order: < WXY>a. The challenge to the Government Resolution dtd. 17/12/2018 and dtd. 1/1/2019 revoking the Government Resolutions dtd. 2/11/2010, 18/2/2011, 3/11/2012, 7/2/2011, 24/2/2011, 26/10/2010, 22/11/2011 and 15/2/2012 issued by the Higher and Technical Department, Mumbai stands rejected. b. The prayer not to recover the excess amount paid due to revised pay fixation with retrospective effect in respect of those who were in service when the Government Resolutions from the year 2010 to 2012 were issued and were unduly benefited (as per the report of the Committee), is rejected. c. The salary which they were entitled to from time to time as per 6th and 7th Pay Commission be calculated and excess amount be recovered by reasonable installments. d. Recovery may not be effectuated from the employees appointed after the Government Resolutions from the year 2010 to 2012. Endeavour shall be made to accommodate them in available post. e. If promotions are given to some employees after the Government Resolutions from the year 2010 to 2012, then the same be verified and necessary steps be taken to post them in appropriate post. Endeavour shall be made to accommodate them in available post. e. If promotions are given to some employees after the Government Resolutions from the year 2010 to 2012, then the same be verified and necessary steps be taken to post them in appropriate post. f. The Respondents may calculate the salary which the Petitioners would be entitled to as per the 6th and 7th Pay Commission, had the Government Resolutions that were set aside under the impugned Government Resolutions would not have been issued. g. The aforesaid exercise shall be done by the Universities, the Higher and Technical Education Department, jointly and expeditiously. h. All the Writ Petitions and the Public Interest Litigation stand disposed of. No costs. i. All Civil / Interim Applications stand disposed of.</ WXY> 62. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submit that the interim orders were passed in these matters and the same were operating. Same be continued. 63. Mr.Kumbhakoni, the learned Counsel for the Respondents opposes the said request. 64. Considering that the earlier interim orders were in force, the recovery shall not be effectuated for a further period of four weeks from today. 65. Needless to state that on lapse of four weeks from today, the present protection granted shall come to an end.