Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. Both the petitioners in this case had temporary service under R.9(a)(i) on advice through Employment Exchange, as High School Assistants. Their services were terminated on the expiry of their provisional appointments. Later, both of them were recruited through Public Service Commission as Primary Departmental Teachers, a post lower than to that of High School Assistant (H.S.A.) on 28.1.77 and 21.2.1977 respectively. They continued in the post as per orders In force. They were promoted on regular basis as H.S. As. as per Exts. P1 and P2 dated 23.9.77 and 7.1.78 respectively. Thus, they became H.S. As. Taking the temporary service that they had put in even much prior to the regular appointment in the lower post of Primary Departmental Teacher, the increment due to the petitioners in the promoted post of H.S.A. was sanctioned. Later the error in reckoning the temporary service as H.S.A. which the petitioners had put in before their entry in service in the lower category of P.D. teacher on regular basis, for the purpose of granting increment after promotion as H.S. As from the lower post was detected and Exts. P3 and P4 were issued directing refixation of increment and pay without reckoning that temporary service. It was also directed that the excess pay drawn by the petitioners from 1978 or 1979 onwards by reason of the added increment on the strength of the said temporary service, shall be got refunded to the department. The petitioners aggrieved by Exts. P3 and P4, submitted representations before Government, Those representations were disposed of by Exts. P13 and P14 upholding Exts. P3 and P4 on the reason that in terms of Government Decision No. 2 under R.33 Part I K.S.R. the petitioners are not entitled to count their earlier temporary service before reqular entry in the department in a lower post, for sanctioning increment in a higher post after promotion from such lower post. 2. Assailing Exts. P3, P4, P13 and P 14, the petitioners submit that they are entitled to increment in terms of the Government decision which reads as follows: "Provisional service on regularisation with or without break in the same category of post will be treated as officiating service ab initio for the limited purpose of granting increments. 2. Assailing Exts. P3, P4, P13 and P 14, the petitioners submit that they are entitled to increment in terms of the Government decision which reads as follows: "Provisional service on regularisation with or without break in the same category of post will be treated as officiating service ab initio for the limited purpose of granting increments. Provisional service followed by a regular appointment with or without break in the same category of post will also be treating as officiating service ab-initio for the limited purpose of granting of increments. The term "same category' of post for the purpose of denotes posts satisfying the following conditions: i.The posts should carry the same or identical scale of pay. ii. The qualification and method of appointment should be the same and iii. The post should fall in the same service. (emphasis supplied) 3. In order to attract the application of the first part of the said statutory provision, the provisional service put in by the incumbent concerned shall be later regularised. The specific word in the Government decision is 'provisional service on regularisation' will be counted for granting increment. The petitioners have no case that the provisional service put in by them before 1977 had, as any time, been regularised. Therefore, the first part of the Government decision does not apply in their case. The second part of the Government decision postulates that provisional service shall be followed by a regular appointment in the same category whether with or without breaks. After termination of the provisional service as H.S.A., what followed was their regular service as P.D. teachers and not as H.S. As. Therefore, what followed was not regular appointment "in the same category of post". Therefore, second part also does not apply to them. 4. There is an added reason also in the second paragraph of the said Government decision. The term "same category" is further defined by that part of the Government decision that the post should carry the same or identical scale of pay and qualification, and method of appointment should be the same. The post of H.S. A. and the post of P.D. teacher, regular appointment to which the petitioners obtained after their provisional appointment, did not carry and even now do not carry the same sake of pay, because P.D. teacher is a lower post than H.S.A. Qualifications are also different. The post of H.S. A. and the post of P.D. teacher, regular appointment to which the petitioners obtained after their provisional appointment, did not carry and even now do not carry the same sake of pay, because P.D. teacher is a lower post than H.S.A. Qualifications are also different. P.D. teachers are expected to take classes in primary school, whereas H.S. As. are expected to take classes in High Schools. Therefore, the condition in the second paragraph is not satisfied in the petitioners' case. 5. It is further submitted by the petitioners that the Government decision No. 2 does not stipulates that regular appointment as H.S.A. need not be without an intervening appointment in another category, in the petitioners' case - In the category of P.D. teachers. That also does not apply according to me because increment is expected to be granted taking into account the service put in by the incumbent in a particular scale of pay. Government decision No. 2 is a concession to a person who is officiating in a post on regular basis to count the period put in by him in the same basis provided the method of appointment i s one and the same as mentioned in condition No. 2 paragraph 2 of the Government decision extracted above. That does not take in a far subsequent promotion to a post once upon a time an incumbent had occupied on a temporary basis. Even if the petitioners' contention is accepted, the petitioners will not come within the second condition in the second paragraph, because temporary appointment in their case was by direct recruitment through Employment Exchange. That appointment was terminated. The petitioners voluntarily applied for appointment as P.O. teacher through P.S.C.. They obtained that appointment on selection. Later they became ripe enough to be promoted as H.S. A. and they were promoted from the post of P.D. teacher. So, the earlier temporary appointment as H.S.A. was through direct recruitment; whereas the regular appointment as H.S. A. was on promotion. So, the method of appointment did differ. So, even if the petitioners' contention is accepted, that condition contained in Government decision No. 2 extracted above is not satisfied. Therefore, the challenge against Exts. P3, P4, P13 and P14 shall fail. The petitioners cannot be granted increment granting the temporary service put in by them. 6. So, the method of appointment did differ. So, even if the petitioners' contention is accepted, that condition contained in Government decision No. 2 extracted above is not satisfied. Therefore, the challenge against Exts. P3, P4, P13 and P14 shall fail. The petitioners cannot be granted increment granting the temporary service put in by them. 6. The petitioners were granted increment on promotion as H.S.A. by the department, taking into account, the temporary service which ought not to have been counted for increment. It is far later that, based on an audit objection, Exts. P3 and P4 were issued to cancel the grant of increment and for consequent pay fixation. The petitioners were not at fault in granting the increment, it is the administrative authority which granted the increment counting the period which could not have been counted. Therefore,-it is arbitrary to mulct the petitioners with the liability to refund the amount which they obtained by reason of a wrong fixation of pay made by the administrative authority for the period upto 1984. Therefore, that part of Exts. P3 and P4 directing refund of the alleged excess amount drawn, as confirmed in Exts. P13 and P14, is quashed. It is further made clear that the petitioners are not entitled to the increment counting the temporary service; but the excess pay cannot be directed to be refunded until the date of Exts. P13 and P14. The respondents are liable to refix the pay of the petitioners without any liability for refund upto the date of Exts. P13 and P14. O.P. is disposed of as above. No costs.