S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed as a junior Engineer, Panchayat Division, ahmedabad District Panchayat, on 20th april 1965. Subsequently, he was confirmed on this post under order dated 28-12-1972 issued by the Superintending engineer, Ahmedabad Panchayat Circle, ahmedabad. The petitioner was promoted temporarily as Deputy Engineer for a period of three months or upto the date the post exists or a Deputy Engineer is posted by the Government whichever is earlier. His services were placed at the disposal of the district Development Officer, Ahmedabad for posting in the scarcity Sub-Division. Though the appointment was for three months, the petitioner contended that he continued to work as such pursuant to the order passed by the District Development officer dated 4-9-1973. The petitioner in paragraph 4 of the writ petition admitted that though he was not reverted, he was asked to work as Deputy Engineer by order dated 11-9-1974. The petitioner was ordered to be promoted regularly under the order of the Government dated 6-10-1977. In paragraph 8 of the writ petition, the petitioner admitted that he was ordered to be reverted from his temporary promotion vide order dated 8-11-1976, but he stated that the said order remained on paper. The petitioner has made twofold grievances in the writ petition. Firstly, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that on his regular promotion under order dated 6-10-1977, the petitioners pay has been fixed at Rs. 700/- which is illegal. The petitioner, though on temporary basis was working on the post of deputy Engineer in the payscale of Rs. 700-1300 and in this scale was Rs. 860/- on the date of regular promotion which should have been protected. ( 2 ) IT has next been contended that the respondent instead of protecting the petitioners pay, vide order dated 24th July 1980 has held that the appointment of the petitioner as Deputy Engineer on temporary basis was not approved by the State government and as such he should refund the amount of salary drawn by him while working as temporary Deputy Engineer which is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. It has also been contended that this order has been passed in total violation of principles of natural justice. It has also been contended that this order has been passed in total violation of principles of natural justice. ( 3 ) LASTLY, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the services of the petitioner as Deputy engineer should be regularised for the period from 15-1-1973 to 14-10-1977 and his pay be fixed on regular promotion basis upon regularisation of his services as deputy Engineer. ( 4 ) I have considered the submissions which have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that mode of recruitment to the post of Deputy engineer is by way of direct recruitment and by promotion in the ratio as provided in the Rules. It has further been conceded by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the criteria for promotion to the post of deputy Engineer is on proved merits. So far as the direct recruited is concerned, it is by selection. From the concessions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that the promotion on the post of Deputy engineer is substantially by way of selection. When the promotion to the post of Deputy Engineer is on the criteria of proved merits where seniority may have no consideration, the question of regularisation of services of the petitioner which he rendered as temporary Deputy Engineer does not arise. The petitioner was temporarily appointed against the temporarily created post. This temporary appointment was only for fixed term which has also been terminated at one point of time. By working on a temporary post on temporary basis, the petitioner has not acquired any right to the post or regularisation. It is not the case of the petitioner that his temporary appointment on the post of Deputy Engineer has been made after considering the cases of all the eligible Junior Engineers. By working on a temporary post on temporary basis, the petitioner has not acquired any right to the post or regularisation. It is not the case of the petitioner that his temporary appointment on the post of Deputy Engineer has been made after considering the cases of all the eligible Junior Engineers. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to cite any authority before me wherein against a post which has to be filled up by promotion on criteria of proved merits, the direction was issued by this Court or Apex Court to regularise the appointment of the person who has been temporarily promoted and that too for fixed term, A reference may have to the decision of mis Court in the case of Bhanumati Tapubhai Muliya v. State of Gujarat reported in 1995 (2) g. L. H. 228, wherein Justice B. N. Kirpal, c. J. , as he then was, observed that the ad hoc appointment for a fixed term automatically comes to an end on the expiry of the period and no order of termination is necessary. On expiry of the term, the employee has no right to continue on the post. It is true that in the present case after the expiry of the term of the temporary appointment, the petitioner has worked on the post but the reversion order has been passed on 8th November 1976. When the petitioner has not acquired right to continue on the post on the basis of fixed term temporary appointment, then how he can justify his claim of regularisation on the post on the basis of said appointment, more so, when the post has to be filled up by promotion on the criteria of proved merits. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention made a reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Pyrasingh reported in AIR 1992 SC 2130 , but that case is of little help to the petitioner as it is a case wherein the petitioner is claiming regularisation on the post of Deputy engineer the post which is to be filled up by promotion on the criteria of proved merits. At the most, it is a case where the petitioner continued on the post of Deputy Engineer temporarily. Admittedly, there is no order of the respondents, appointing the petitioners in the substantive capacity. At the most, it is a case where the petitioner continued on the post of Deputy Engineer temporarily. Admittedly, there is no order of the respondents, appointing the petitioners in the substantive capacity. A temporary government servant does not become. permanent unless he acquires that capacity by force of any rule or is declared as permanent servant which is also not the case of the petitioner. Contrary to it the temporary appointment of the petitioner made at local level was not approved by the government. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Dr. Pyarimohan misra reported in AIR 1995 SC 974 held that mere prolonged continuous ad hoc service does not ripen into a regular service to claim permanent or substantive status he would remain to be on on ad hoc basis until further orders and admittedly in this case such an order is not made by the government. ( 5 ) THE net result of the aforesaid discussion is that the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of services which he had rendered as a temporary Deputy Engineer for the period aforesaid is not tenable. When the claim of the petitioner for regularisation is not tenable, there was no question of protecting his salary also on his regular promotion. So far as the order dated 24th January, 1980 is concerned under which the recovery of the salary which the petitioner has drawn while working as temporary Deputy Engineer is ordered, it cannot be allowed to sustain for two reasons. Firstly, it would certainly cause prejudice to the petitioner as he will be put to suffer monetary loss or it results in civil consequences but this order has been passed without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Secondly, I fail to see any justification for this demand by the respondent as the petitioner got the salary for the work done as a Deputy Engineer. It is not in dispute that the petitioner worked for this period on the post of Deputy engineer. His appointment may or may not be sanctioned by the Government but nevertheless, the fact remains that he discharged the duties of the post of Deputy engineer and as such he is entitled for the salary to the said post for the period in question on the principle of pay for work taken. His appointment may or may not be sanctioned by the Government but nevertheless, the fact remains that he discharged the duties of the post of Deputy engineer and as such he is entitled for the salary to the said post for the period in question on the principle of pay for work taken. ( 6 ) IN the result, this writ petition is partly allowed. So far as the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of his services for the period from 15th January 1973 to 14th August 1977 as well as of the protection of the pay is rejected but in regard to the order dated 24th January 1980 annexure "h" to the extent it relates to the recovery of the difference in salary which he drew while working as Deputy Engineer is allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. .