1.Petitioner seeks to quash order No. 940-41 /SDD dated: 15-11 -2000 issued by the respondent- 4 whereby he has directed stoppage of increments of the petitioner. He further seeks writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to recover the amount of increments disbursed to him. 2.The petitioner has averted in the petition that by virtue of Forest Order No. 95 dated: 03-11-1995, the petitioner came to be appointed as Range Officer, Grade-I on adhoc basis for a period of six months. Alongwith the petitioner, 49 other candidates also came to be appointed for the same period. The petitioner and the other appointed candidates apprehending their ouster earlier also approached this court by SWP No.450/96 and SWP No. 109/96. How ever, Letters Patent Bench in LPA No. 91/96 directed the continuance of the petitioners as Range Officers Grade-I till the selection is made. Increments during adhoc period of their service have been drawn and disbursed to the petitioners. The respondents vide impugned order have directed the recovery of the amount of increments from the petitioner being not entitled to the same as an adhoc employee. 3.Impugned order has been challenged on the grounds that the petitioner was working on the strength of his appointment and subsequently continued on the basis of the interim direction of the court. The increment is a part of pay and cannot be withdrawn. He has relied upon Regulations 27 and 72 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations. 4. Respondents have filed objections stating therein that the petitioner was working on adhoc basis and his continuation by an interim direction of the court does not vest him with any right of regularisation or making his appointment as substantive. The petitioner being an adhoc employee was not entitled to earn increments which have been wrongly paid to him. Recovery directed towards wrongly paid increments is in consonance with law as the petitioner has no right to get the salary which is not due to him. 5.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner was working as an adhoc employee till selection is made, that too by virtue of the court directions passed in LPA No. 91/96. 5.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner was working as an adhoc employee till selection is made, that too by virtue of the court directions passed in LPA No. 91/96. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the increments drawn and disbursed to the petitioner cannot be withheld or recovered as he has been working against the clear vacancy and is entitled to withdraw the increments even on the strength of his status as an adhoc employee. Mr. Goja, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Regulation-27 of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Service Rules. For facility of reference, it is reproduced below:- "Regulation-27: That pay shall mean the amount drawn monthly by a Govt. servant other than Special pay and officiating pay. Salary:- Salary as defined under sub-clause (b) of Rule 27 means the sum of pay and Acting Allowances and Charge Allowances under Art. 2 of Chapter V and 85 of Chapter VIII." 6.This provision of law interprets the meaning of pay and salary to be drawn against the post held by a person substantively or officiating capacity. Petitioner is neither working substantively nor officiating but on adhoc basis which appointment is known to the Rules 14 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. He has further relied upon Regulations 72 and 73 which are extracted below and read thus: "Regulation-72: An increment accrues from the date of following that on which it is earned; Provided that a Government servant in service on 01 -01 -1976 or appointed on or after that date, shall be granted an increment from the first of the month in which it falls due." "Regulation-73: (1) An increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless it is withheld from a Government servant by a competent authority if his conduct has not been good or work has not been satisfactory. In ordering withholding of an increment or increments the withholding authority shall state the period for which it is withheld and whether the withholding shall have the effect of postponing future increments." 7. This provision of law does not make out any case for the petitioner that he being an adhoc employee is entitled to draw the increments. In ordering withholding of an increment or increments the withholding authority shall state the period for which it is withheld and whether the withholding shall have the effect of postponing future increments." 7. This provision of law does not make out any case for the petitioner that he being an adhoc employee is entitled to draw the increments. Relevant provision dealing with the proposition is contained in Regulation-78 read with Government Instructions appended thereto, which is extracted below: "Government Instruction:- Doubts have been expressed if service rendered on adhoc basis counts for increments when followed by regular appointment. It is hereby clarified that adhoc appointments were made on or after 01 -04-1979 should be on a consolidated salary which will be equal to the minimum of the scale of pay of the post to which adhoc appointment is made. No increments be allowed to be drawn during adhoc service, or such service should not be allowed to be counted for increments after regular appointment." 8. This provision of law makes out it abundantly clear that a person who is appointed on adhoc basis on or after 01-04-1979 will get salary which will be equal to the minimum of the scale of pay of the post against which adhoc appointment is made and no increments will be allowed to be drawn during adhoc service. 9. An adhoc employee is entitled to get salary in terms of the rules which is the minimum of the pay scale. Petitioner thus was not entitled to draw increments. If salary is wrongly drawn being not due, the beneficiary has no right to retain it. Therefore, the respondents are within their right to recover the salary wrongly paid to the petitioner. 10. Petitioner could not make out from any provision of law that, if an increment is paid to the petitioner which was not due to him and is excess to the salary required to be paid, it cannot be recovered. For the aforesaid reasons, writ petition fails and is dismissed.