Judgment 1. The dispute in this appeal arising from writ petition preferred by the State of Rajasthan relates to grant of annual increments to an employee who was appointed taking recourse to Rule 26(3) which provides for urgent temporary appointments in situation envisaged therein. 2. The short facts of the case are that the Respondent No. 1 Gopal Das (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) was appointed on temporary basis on the post of lower division clerk on 23.05.1985. He was allowed benefit of annual increments like other employees of the State Government but the benefit was not only denied but the amount already paid was sought to be recovered vide order dated 24.09.1991 in the light of circular of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 07.08.1991. In terms of said circula the employees not appointed by regular method of appointment are entitled to the minimum pay in the scale alongwith dearness allowance but not entitled to any other benefit like house rent allowance, compensatory allowance, special pay, including the annual increments. The said order dated 24.09.1991 was set aside by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5266/1991 on 012.1997 on the ground that the order had been passed without giving opportunity of hearing. On 27.05.1999 after hearing the respondent a fresh order was passed holding that he was not entitled to annual increments and allowances except the pay at the minimum of prescribed scale and the dearness allowance. The respondent challenged the order before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. By order dated 27.03.2003 the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent and others. The Tribunal held that it was not the condition of appointment of the respondent that the annual increments would not be allowed. The Tribunal also held that the grant of increment is not dependent on the nature of appointment as being temporary or permanent. The State filed writ petition which was rejected by the learned Single Judge and it has come in special appeal to the Division Bench. 3. After hearing Counsel for the appellant we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view of the Tribunal. It is clear that the respondent is sought to be deprived of the benefit of annual increments on the basis of the subsequent circular of 1991. 3. After hearing Counsel for the appellant we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view of the Tribunal. It is clear that the respondent is sought to be deprived of the benefit of annual increments on the basis of the subsequent circular of 1991. There was no condition attached with his appointment that he would be paid simply minimum pay in the prescribed pay scale without benefit of annual increments and such a condition cannot be subsequently imposed as a term of his appointment. The only ground on which the respondent and other similarly situated persons were deprived on increments was that they were appointed without taking recourse to the prescribed mode of appointment. Sub-rule (8) of Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 to which our attention was drawn provides for conversion of temporary appointment to permanent appointment subject to availability of permanent vacancy and the person passing the performance test. It is an enabling provision which is to be applied for the benefit of the employee rather than to his detriment. There being no statutory rule depriving the respondent of right of annual increments the condition set out in the circular of 1991 denying the benefit of annual increments cannot be said to be in accordance with Article 14 of the Constitution. We thus do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. 4. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.