JUDGMENT : Deepak Roshan, J. Since all these writ applications involve common issue; as such, all are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In all these writ applications, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the notice of Director of Agriculture, Government of Jharkhand; whereby the grade pay of village level workers had been reduced from Rs.2,400/-to Rs.2,000/- vide Office Order No.44 dated 12.04.2022 (Letter No.1938) and an order not to recover surplus payment vide Office Order No.55 dated 25.04.2023; was cancelled vide Office order No.57 issued under Memo No.1999 dated 28.04.2023; all of which have been annexed as annexures in respective writ applications. 3. Learned counsels for the respective petitioners have contended that the petitioners have been appointed pursuant to an advertisement; wherein the grade-pay was mentioned as Rs.2400/-. They were also confirmed after about 7 to 8 years in the grade-pay of Rs.2400/-, but all of a sudden in the year 2022, the impugned order has been issued to the effect that their grade pay has wrongly been calculated to Rs.2400/-; rather, it should be Rs.2000/-. 4. Mr. Ajit Kumar, Ld. Sr. counsel submits that the action of the State Government is not sustainable in the eye of law. The State is not empowered to change the grade-pay or any service condition. He contended that after the advertisement and subsequent appointments of the petitioners in the grade pay of 2400 cannot be taken away which was also continued for more than a decade. 5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respective petitioner contended that the action of the respondents does not have any legs to stand in the eye of law and is fit to be quashed and set aside 6. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after the 2011 notification, there was an amendment in 2012 and pursuant thereto; an advertisement was issued wherein there was specific mention of the grade-pay and finally appointment letters were also issued in favour of respective petitioners with the same grade-pay. He further contended that this grade-pay was not a contingent right but it is a vested right. 7. Mr. He further contended that this grade-pay was not a contingent right but it is a vested right. 7. Mr. Sujit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Fitment Committee Report which is being relied upon by the respondents will not be applicable in this case because of the amendment and in the said Circular of 660 itself there is a mention of grade-pay of Rs. 2400/- at the top of the paragraph. 8. In nutshell, learned counsels for the respective petitioners have contended that the action of the respondent in reducing the grade-pay by taking a ground that it was a mistake is Non-Est in the eye of law. Neither they can do so after the appointment as well as confirmation nor; a vested right can be taken away as per the settled rules. 9. In the Circular of 660 also it is mentioned that the candidates will get grade-pay of Rs.2400/-. They have further contended that the reduction of grade-pay will be down-grading of the position what they were called for vide advertisement and with their confirmed in the job. In crux, the act of the respondent-department is a change in service condition which is not permissible in the eye of law. 10. Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV and Mrs. Shruti Shrestha, SC (L&C)-II assisted by Mr. Anuj Burman, AC to GA-IV, representing the respondents in the respective cases submits that they have not committed any mistake and they have rectified the grade-pay as per Fitment Committee Report because they have wrongly given grade-pay of Rs.2400/- to the petitioners. He draws attention of this Court towards the Fitment Committee Report wherein at para 35.13, it is clearly mentioned that the pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000 for the serving Village Level Workers. Learned counsel for the State respondents contended that the said paragraph clearly recommends that in future new appointments will be made in the pay-scale of Rs.3200-4900. He further refers to the Circular No.660 dated 08.02.1999 wherein the pay-scale of Jansewak and revised pay-scale of Jansewak have been mentioned as Rs.1200-1800 & 4000-6000. However, in the said Circular it is categorically mentioned that new recruits will in future be on the scale of Rs.3200-4900. He further submits that the Fitment Committee Report is binding on the State and it is a settled law that if any mistake has been committed by the State that can be rectified at any stage. However, in the said Circular it is categorically mentioned that new recruits will in future be on the scale of Rs.3200-4900. He further submits that the Fitment Committee Report is binding on the State and it is a settled law that if any mistake has been committed by the State that can be rectified at any stage. He further submits that grade-pay has not been reduced, inasmuch as, the grade-pay of Rs.3200-4900 will come to grade pay Rs.2000/- and not Rs.2400/-. 11. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties in all these writ applications it appears that the petitioners have been appointed pursuant to an advertisement; wherein the grade-pay was mentioned as Rs.2400/-. They were also confirmed after about 7 to 8 years in the grade-pay of Rs.2400/-, but all of a sudden in the year 2022, the impugned order has been passed to the effect that the grade pay has wrongly been calculated to Rs.2400/-; rather, it should be Rs.2000/-. It further appears that the respondents have taken a ground in reducing the grade pay is that the petitioners were given the grade pay of 2400 was a mistake, which they have rectified. They have also referred the Fitment Committee Report especially para 35.13; wherein it is clearly mentioned that the pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000 will be for the serving Village Level Workers. 12. At this stage itself it is necessary to indicate that the Fitment Committee Report which is being relied upon by the respondents will not be applicable in this case because of the amendment in the year 2012 and in the said Circular of 660 itself there is a mention of grade-pay of Rs. 2400/- at the top of the paragraph and pursuant thereto; an advertisement was issued wherein there was specific mention of the grade-pay and finally appointment letters were also issued in favour of respective petitioners with the grade-pay of 2400. 13. Here it is pertinent to mention here that this grade-pay of 2400 was not a contingent right but a vested right and continued for years; thus, the same cannot be taken away. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manish Kumar V. Union of Indian and Another reported in (2021) 5 SCC 1 wherein at para 340 it has been held as under:- 340. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manish Kumar V. Union of Indian and Another reported in (2021) 5 SCC 1 wherein at para 340 it has been held as under:- 340. As far as the distinct kind of legal rights are concerned, in the classification made by Salmond [ See, Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th Edn., P.J. Fitzgerald.] which counts nine distinct legal classifications of legal rights, we notice the following discussion of classification between vested and contingent rights. To quote: “Vested and contingent rights— A right vests when all the facts have occurred which must by law occur in order for the person in question to have the right. A right is contingent when some but not all of the vestive facts, as they are termed, have occurred. A grant of land to A in fee simple will give A a vested right of ownership. A grant to A for life and then to B in fee simple if he survives A, gives B a contingent right. It is contingent because some of the vestive facts have not yet taken place, and indeed may never do so : B may not survive A, if he does, his formerly contingent right now becomes vested. A contingent right then is a right that is incomplete. A contingent right is different, however from a mere hope of spes. If A leaves B a legacy in his will, B has no right to this during A's lifetime. He has no more than a hope that he will obtain a legacy; he certainly does not have an incomplete right, since it is open to A at any time to alter his will.” As stated hereinabove, pursuant to the advertisement; wherein there was specific mention of the grade-pay and finally appointment letters were also issued in favour of respective petitioners with the same grade-pay and the jobs of respective petitioner were also confirmed at the same grade pay of 2400 and the same continued for about a decade. As a matter of fact, the service conditions of the petitioners are to be protected and cannot be changed to his detriment by virtue of the regulation; as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court (Refer Grid Corporation of Orissa and Others V. Rasananda Das reported in (2003) 10 SCC 297 para 7 to 9.) Further, the State is not empowered to change the grade-pay or any service condition of its employee. (Refer State of Bihar and Others V. Bihar State Workshop Superintendents Federation and Others reported in 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 368 para 8). 14. The action of the respondents is also bad from other angle, inasmuch as, rules cannot be changed after advertisement. In this case, pursuant to the advertisement; with specific mention of the grade-pay; the respective petitioner applied and selected and finally appointment letters were also issued. The Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically reprimanded such action and held that to pay any salary/pay scale lesser than what was offered at the time of inviting the applications would be changing the conditions of service, which is not permissible. In the case of Bihar State Beverages Corporation Limited and Others V. Naresh Kumar Mishra and Others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 110 para 24, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “24. Challenge to the Resolution dated 27-3-2012 is also required to be considered from another angle. At the time of advertisement and inviting the applications, the employees were offered the specific pay scales against respective posts. It appears that the pay scale which was offered and thereafter paid by it till the Resolution dated 27-3-2012 was on a par with the pay scale paid to the government employees as per the 5th PRC. Therefore, thereafter, to pay any salary/pay scale lesser than what was offered at the time of inviting the applications would be changing the conditions of service, which is not permissible.” 15. Having regards to the aforesaid discussions, I hold that the action of the respondent in reducing the grade-pay by taking a ground that it was a mistake is Non-Est in the eye of law. Neither they can do so after the appointment as well as confirmation; nor a vested right can be taken away as per the settled rules. 16. Having regards to the aforesaid discussions, I hold that the action of the respondent in reducing the grade-pay by taking a ground that it was a mistake is Non-Est in the eye of law. Neither they can do so after the appointment as well as confirmation; nor a vested right can be taken away as per the settled rules. 16. In view of the aforesaid submissions and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the respective impugned orders i.e. Office Order No.44 dated 12.04.2022 (Letter No.1938) and all consequential orders passed with respect to the same, are hereby, quashed and set aside. The details of respective impugned orders are given hereinbelow:- (i) Office Order No.57 (Letter No.1999) dated 28.04.2023, Letter No.2000 dated 28.04.2023 and Office Order No.44 (Letter No.1938) dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure-10 series) in W.P. (S) No.2397 of 2023. (ii) Order No.44 contained in Memo No.1938 dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure-6) in W.P.(S) No.2395 of 2023. (iii) Memo No.1914 dated 25.04.2023 (Annexure-4) in W.P.(S) No.2253 of 2023. (iv) Office Order No.44 dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure-11) and Office Order No.57 as contained in memo No.1999 dated 28.04.2023 (Annexure-13) in W.P.(S) No.2600 of 2023. (v) Office Order No.57 contained in Memo No.1999 dated 28.04.2023 (Annexure-10), Letter No.2000 dated 28.04.2023 contained in Memo No.2000 dated 28.04.2023 (Annexure-11), Office Order No.55 (Memo No.1914) dated 25.04.2023 (Annexure-9) and Office Order No.44 (Letter No.1938) dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure-8) in W.P. (S) No.2647 of 2023. (vi) Orders dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure-6) and 28.04.2023 (Annexure-7/1) in W.P.(S) No.2698 of 2023. (vii) Office Order No.57 (Letter No.1999) dated 28.04.2023 (Annexure-6/1), Office Order No.44 (Letter No.1938) dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure-5) and Office Order No.55 dated 25.04.2023 (Annexure-6) in W.P.(S) No.2833 of 2023. (viii) Office Order No.44 dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure-11) and Office Order No.55 dated 25.04.2023 (Annexure-12) in W.P. (S) No.3049 of 2023. (ix) Office Order No.44 contained in Letter bearing Memo No.1938 dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure-7). It goes without saying that the money, if already recovered from these petitioners, be paid to them preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 17. Accordingly, these writ applications stand allowed.