O. P. GARG, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner-Ravindra Nath Chaubey is working in class-III cadre of Judgeship of Ballia. In course of time, he came to be promoted from the initial scale of pay of Rs. 3,050-4,500 to Rs. 4,000-6,000. He was also placed in the gradation list senior to certain employees, namely, pashupati Nath and others, who had challenged his regular appointment as well as seniority. The learned District Judge, Ballia, passed an order on 16. 11. 1999, a copy of which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition whereby he found that the petitioner was merely an ad hoc employee and in view of the Government Order dated 8. 6. 1990, he was not entitled even to the privilege of yearly increment in his salary. He issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be placed in the initial scale of pay of Rs. 3,050-4,500. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply. A final order dated 17. 12. 1999, has been passed, which has been impugned, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the present writ petition, by the District Judge, Ballia. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner has been placed in the pay scale of Rs. 3,050-4,500 and a total sum of rs. 90,273 (Rs. 83,869 as the amount of excess emoluments consequent upon his fixation of salary in the scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000 and Rs. 6,404 on account of leave encashment) was directed to be recovered in 90 monthly instalments out of which 89 instalments were for Rs. 1,000 each while last instalment was to be of Rs. 1,273. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner on variety of grounds, particularly the one that the learned District judge has exhibited a sense of irresponsibility and insubordination by violating the orders passed, on the administrative side, by this Court. The petitioner, therefore, has prayed by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that the order dated 17. 12. 1999, annexure-1, passed by the District Judge, Ballia, be quashed and he be commanded to pay the salary to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000. ( 2 ) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. 12. 1999, annexure-1, passed by the District Judge, Ballia, be quashed and he be commanded to pay the salary to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000. ( 2 ) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. The stand taken on behalf of the district Judge, Ballia, is that after properly construing the orders passed by this Court, on the administrative side, and taken into account the factual aspects, the impugned order has been rightly passed which calls for no interference in the writ jurisdiction by this Court by invoking the extraordinary powers. ( 3 ) HEARD Sri R. N. Singh, senior advocate, assisted by Sri A. P. Sahi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Sudhir Agarwal, appearing on behalf of the District Judge, Ballia. ( 4 ) AFTER having given thoughtful consideration to the material placed before this Court and the admitted position which is culled out from the respective averments made by the parties, I have no hesitation in prefacing the decision with the observation that the various orders passed by this court, on the administrative side, have created serious problems to the District Judge, Ballia to contain the resentment of class-III employees. As would be shown presently, the orders, on the administrative side, were passed without taking into consideration the stark realities and the facts as obtaining in the Judgeship as well as against the Rules. This Court, on the administrative side, is supposed to issue proper guidance to the District Judges subordinate to it. The present case is an example which exhibits a sense of total disregard of the Rules by this Court as the orders issued to the District Judge could not have been passed in any circumstance. In order to fortify the above observation, which may appear to be somewhat unsavoury in nature, it is necessary to unfold the narrative of the case. ( 5 ) THE petitioner who was an outsider was appointed as Paid Apprentice on purely temporary basis initially for a period of about two months on 15. 9. 1981. The temporary appointment given to the petitioner reads as follows : "sri Ravindra Nath Chaubey, an outsider is temporarily appointed to work as Paid Apprentice vice Sri Vijai Prakash. ( 5 ) THE petitioner who was an outsider was appointed as Paid Apprentice on purely temporary basis initially for a period of about two months on 15. 9. 1981. The temporary appointment given to the petitioner reads as follows : "sri Ravindra Nath Chaubey, an outsider is temporarily appointed to work as Paid Apprentice vice Sri Vijai Prakash. Regular appointment of Sri Ravindra Nath Chaubey in the ministerial staff of the Judgeship will be subject to his success in the competitive test to be held in the near future. " The above temporary appointment continued up to 31. 8. 1982. In this manner, the petitioner worked for less than a year. A regular recruitment test was held under the provisions of U. P. Subordinate Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the rules) in the early part of the year 1983. The list of the test was finally published in the year 1985. There were in all 48 candidates in the list. The name of the petitioner found a place at Sl. No. 39. Out of the said list, 21 candidates were given regular appointments. The life of the list was one year as contemplated in Rule 14 (3) of the Rules and accordingly by order dated 3/4. 2. 1986, the then District Judge, Ballia, scrapped the above list in relation to the candidates who were not successful in securing appointment within a period of one year from the date of the publication of the result. The petitioner, therefore, remained out of employment right from 1. 9. 1982. A representation for regularization of services was made by him before this Court on the administrative side. By letter No. 9363/37a/admn. (D) dated 15. 10. 1986, a copy of which is annexure-3 to the petition, Sri M. P. Srivastava, the then Deputy Registrar of this Court informed the District Judge, Ballia, that after careful consideration of the facts available on record, the representation of the petitioner has been allowed and a direction was issued to the district Judge to employ the petitioner as a special case. This letter was misleading, inasmuch as, the question of allowing the representation of the petitioner for regularization of his services did not arise as the petitioner was not in the employment after 1. 9. 1982. This letter was misleading, inasmuch as, the question of allowing the representation of the petitioner for regularization of his services did not arise as the petitioner was not in the employment after 1. 9. 1982. He was directed to be employed as a special case after a period of more than four years of his cessation from service. The petitioner was a person who was not successful in securing the required position in the recruitment test for being appointed on regular basis. There did not appear to be any special case which warranted employment of the petitioner. Nevertheless, in deference to the letter issued by this Court, District Judge, Ballia, had given a back door entry to the petitioner in service w. e. f. 21. 10. 1986. This time, the petitioner continued to work for a period less than one year as he ceased to work on 7. 4. 1987. Again, at the time when the petitioner was out of employment, this court wrote a letter No. 632/37-A/admn. (D) dated 25. 1. 1988, a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition on the representation of the petitioner for fixation of his seniority. The letter addressed to the District Judge, Ballia, reads as follows :"with reference to your letter No. 1511/xv, dated November 18, 1987, on the above subject, I am directed to say that the Court after a careful consideration of the case has been pleased to order that the name of Sri R. N. Chaubey be placed over the name of Sri A. K. Pandey in the gradation list. The Court has further been pleased to order that Sri R. N. Chaubey will not be entitled to any salary for the period he was out of employment. The petitioner may kindly be informed accordingly. " The impact of this letter has been that the petitioner, who was not in service at that time when the said letter was issued, was allowed the benefit of seniority and was directed to be placed in the gradation list over the candidates who had been successful in the regular competitive recruitment test. " The impact of this letter has been that the petitioner, who was not in service at that time when the said letter was issued, was allowed the benefit of seniority and was directed to be placed in the gradation list over the candidates who had been successful in the regular competitive recruitment test. The learned District Judge had no option in the matter but to implement the direction issued by this Court, on the administrative side, but it had serious repercussions on the administrative side of the Judgeship, inasmuch as, regularly selected candidates made representations after representation challenging the placement of the petitioner above them. The matter came up before this Court, on the administrative side, and again by letter No. 7959/37-A/admn. (D) dated August 25, 1988, Annexure-4 to the petition, the representation made by Sri Pashupati Nath and other officials of Ballia Judgeship was rejected on the ground that the seniority of the petitioner had already been decided. ( 6 ) NOW let us swiftly examine the standing and status of the petitioner in service. He could secure back door entry for a period less than a year as a Paid Apprentice in the year 1981-82. He was unsuccessful in the regular recruitment test, inasmuch as, he did not secure the position which would have entitled him regular appointment. He remained out of job for a period more than four years when pursuant to the directions of this Court, he got the privilege of a back door entry in service on 21. 10. 1986. This engagement could last hardly for a period of six months as he ceased to work on 7. 4. 1987. A funny order was issued by this Court determining the seniority of a person who not only was unsuccessful in securing a regular appointment but at the relevant time was out of job. Somehow, the petitioner was successful in getting himself again engaged in the Judgeship of Ballia on 1. 2. 1988. The appointment of the petitioner continued to be ad hoc in nature and he can get the privilege of regular appointment only in view of the provisions of U. P. Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service commission) Rules, 1979 (for short called the rule of 1979) as amended from time to time. On the cut off date, i. e. , 7. 8. On the cut off date, i. e. , 7. 8. 1989, as prescribed in the amended Rules of 1979, the petitioner had not completed three years of service. His ad hoc appointment could not be regularized. At best, the petitioner may be treated to be working continuously without break right from 1. 2. 1988, onwards and regularization of his services has to be ordered after has case is thrashed out under the provisions of the Rules of 1979, as amended from time to time. An ad hoc employee is not entitled to annual increment in his salary. The original service book of the petitioner was sent for. It indicates that the petitioner was allowed to draw the first increment in the old scale of pay of Rs. 354-550, w. e. f. 1. 7. 1988. ( 7 ) IT appears that the Account Section of the Judgeship of Ballia as well as the then District judge were misled on account of the various orders issued by this Court on the administrative side. I am constrained to observe that the orders issued by this Court on administrative side, instead of ventilating the grievance of the regularly selected and appointed employees of the judgeship had the effect of perpetuating the illegality in the matter of the appointment of the petitioner. A person who was hot successful in securing the appointment as a result of regular recruitment test was made to get a back door entry. The matter did not stop here. He was also allowed to march over the regularly selected employees while. In fact, and in law, an ad hoc employee has to be placed below the regularly selected candidates and till his regularization according to Rules takes place, he is not even entitled to the benefit of annual increments. An ad hoc employee has to work in the initial scale of pay but in the case of the present petitioner, he succeeded in getting his salary fixed in the higher scale of pay of Rs. 4,000-6,000 which is made available to the regular employees on promotion. The previous patches of engagement of the petitioner which lasted for less than a year (while the period of interruption was much larger than the period of actual engagement) could not be reckoned for giving benefit for the purposes of increment and seniority. 4,000-6,000 which is made available to the regular employees on promotion. The previous patches of engagement of the petitioner which lasted for less than a year (while the period of interruption was much larger than the period of actual engagement) could not be reckoned for giving benefit for the purposes of increment and seniority. As said above, for all practical purposes, the petitioner shall be deemed to be working on ad hoc basis w. e. f. 1. 2. 1988. His previous engagements prior to the said dates are not to be taken into account for any purpose, whatsoever. The various letters issued by this court, on administrative side, it appears were issued without ascertaining the correct facts. These letters, therefore, have to be ignored as unwarranted and against the Rules. ( 8 ) THE order dated 16. 11. 1999 (Annexure-6 to the petition) which was subsequently finalised by the impugned order dated 17. 12. 1999 (Annexure-1 to the petition) passed by the District Judge, ballia, does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Learned District Judge has taken a correct view in the matter and after appraising various dates of the engagement of the petitioner, came to a rightful conclusion that the petitioner continues to be an ad hoc employee working from 1. 2. 1988, onwards and that he was not entitled to annual increments. The order that the petitioner shall get salary in the initial scale of pay of Rs. 3,050-4,500 is beyond the pale of challenge. ( 9 ) SRI R. N. Singh, senior advocate and learned counsel for the petitioner, however, urged that the direction of the learned District Judge to recover a sum of Rs. 90,273 in 90 monthly instalments from the salary of the petitioner was not warranted. Sri Sudhir Agarwal repelled this submission and placing reliance on the three decisions of the Apex Court, namely, (1) Chandan saha v. Union of India, SLP No. 9324 of 1996 decided on 25. 4. 90,273 in 90 monthly instalments from the salary of the petitioner was not warranted. Sri Sudhir Agarwal repelled this submission and placing reliance on the three decisions of the Apex Court, namely, (1) Chandan saha v. Union of India, SLP No. 9324 of 1996 decided on 25. 4. 1996, (2) Union of India and others v. Smt. Sujata Vedachalan and another, 2000 (4) ST 709 and (3) Comptroller and Auditor general of India v. Farid Sattar, 2000 (4) ST 611, supported the order passed by the learned district Judge and urged that since the excess amount which has been paid to the petitioner in an illegal manner, is sought to be recovered in easy monthly instalments, the order of the learned district Judge cannot be faulted on any ground. Sri R. N. Singh learned senior advocate urged that the petitioner had discharged the responsibilities of the higher post in the scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000 and since the petitioner was not at fault, the amount paid to him cannot be recovered. The submission of Sri R. N. Singh cannot be said to be without foundation or force. ( 10 ) THE three decisions relied upon by Sri Sudhir Agarwal are distinguishable on facts. The observations made therein are not of universal application. The facts of Farid Sattars case (supra) would make the point clear. In that case, Farid Sattar who was an Accountant was transferred on his own request from Calcutta to Sikkim on the condition that he would rank junior to the junior most Accountant in the department at Sikkim. His pay was wrongly fixed as senior Accountant at Rs. 1,560 which he was getting before his transfer at Calcutta. It was in these circumstances that the Apex Court observed that the terms and conditions provided that farid Sattar would be appointed to a post which is tower to the post which he was occupying prior to his transfer and he was also required to tender technical resignation from the post which he was holding with a view to join lower post as a direct recruit and was to rank junior to the junior most employee in the cadre of Accountant. He was further required to forego the benefit of passing any departmental examination while working in the higher post. He was further required to forego the benefit of passing any departmental examination while working in the higher post. In such a situation, the pay of Farid Sattar had to be fixed with reference to the lower pay scale and not with reference to pay drawn by him in the higher post since he was to be considered as a direct recruit in the lower post. Under the terms and conditions of transfer, the pay which Abdul Sattar was drawing on higher post was not required to be protected when he joined the lower post of accountant. The above observations are not attracted to the instant case. ( 11 ) THE matter came to be considered by the Apex Court in the case of Mahmood Hasan and others v. State of U. P. and others, JT 1997 (1) SC 353, where the employees were reverted to a lower post as their promotion was against the Rule, it was held that those who will have to step down on account of correctional process need not refund the pecuniary or other benefits enjoyed by them for they had actually worked during that period. There is yet another direct authority on the point. In the case of Shyam Babu Verma and others v. Union of India and others, (1994) 2 scc 521 , the Apex Court dealing with the similar situation, ruled that since the petitioner received higher pay scale not due to fault of his own, it would not be just and proper to recover the salary paid to him. A Division Bench of this Court had the occasion to deal with the similar controversy. In Harish Chandra Srivastava v. State of U. P. and others, (1996) 3 UPLBEC 1840, an order was passed without giving an opportunity to withhold super-annuation benefits to the petitioner, who was wrongly promoted and was paid the higher salary, it was observed that the impugned order was liable to be quashed not only on the ground of want of affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner but also on the ground that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for securing promotion on the higher scale of pay by misrepresenting the department and, therefore, payment of salary cannot be recovered. Also see Gabriel Saver fernandes v. State of Karnataka, 1995 Suppl (1) SCC 149. Also see Gabriel Saver fernandes v. State of Karnataka, 1995 Suppl (1) SCC 149. The above decisions were also considered by this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan Pathak v. State of U. P. , 1998 (1)UPLBEC 761, in which a new dimension was added that direction for refund or adjustment of the amount paid is illegal and violative of the spirit of Article 23 of the Constitution of India. ( 12 ) IN view of the decisions, aforesaid, I feel, that the petitioner should not be penalized for no fault on his part by permitting deduction of a sum of Rs. 90,273 from his salary in monthly instalments as directed by the District Judge. ( 13 ) ALL told, the fact remains that the impugned order of the District Judge dated 17. 12. 1999, insofar as it confers the status of an ad hoc employee on the petitioner and fixation of his salary in the scale of Rs. 3,050-4,500 is legally justified and no interference in writ jurisdiction is warranted. The petitioner cannot be allowed to march over the employees who have been appointed after due selection at the recruitment test. However, the direction of the District Judge for recovery of Rs. 90,273 in monthly instalments, for the reasons stated above, is required to be knocked off. ( 14 ) THE writ petition is partly allowed, inasmuch as the impugned order passed by the respondent-District Judge, Ballia, dated 17. 12. 1999, Annexure-1 to the petition, shall stand modified to the extent that recovery of Rs. 90,273 by deduction from the salary of the petitioner shall not be made. In other respects, the order shall stand and be operative. The parties shall bear their own costs.