Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONER in this petition has assailed an order (P-8) dated 10-10-2003 passed by the Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Development Department, govt. of M. P. Bhopal by which the recovery of the amount of increments which was paid to the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment has been ordered. ( 2. ) IT is submitted by the petitioner that initially he was appointed on ad hoc basis; his services were regularized as per order (P-4) dated 7-5-91. His services were ordered to have continued w. e. f. date of the initial appointment, hence, petitioner has submitted that recovery is bad in law. ( 3. ) A return has been filed by the respondents in which it has been contended by respondents that petitioner was appointed as Steno for a period of 2 months as per order (P-l) dated 2-2-84, period was further extended by 2 months; later on service period of petitioner was regularized as per order (P-4)dated 7-5-91. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before passing order of recovery of the amount. Recovery has been properly ordered as after order (P-3); no order was passed extending the period of appointment though petitioner continued in service, regularisation was made in the year 1991, hence, impugned order is proper, no interference is called for. ( 4. ) SHRI K. L. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the order of recovery is bad in law as continuing of service period of the petitioner has been ordered in the year 1991 with retrospective effect i. e. the date of the initial appointment; increments were rightly given, recovery of the increments is bad in law. He has further submitted that during the ad hoc officiation period increments were rightly released. He has relied upon the circular dated 18-8-1993 in which Finance Department of the State Govt. has directed that the incumbents appointed on ad hoc basis shall be entitled for the increments during the ad hoc officiation. ( 5. He has further submitted that during the ad hoc officiation period increments were rightly released. He has relied upon the circular dated 18-8-1993 in which Finance Department of the State Govt. has directed that the incumbents appointed on ad hoc basis shall be entitled for the increments during the ad hoc officiation. ( 5. ) SHRI V. Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondents, has submitted that no interference is called for in this writ petition as the period of appointment was not extended after 1984 though the services were later on ordered to have continued, hence, no interference is called for, however on being required by the Court to produce the circular dated 18-8-93 of the Finance department; in all fairness expected from the Govt. Advocate; he has produced it; appreciation is placed on record. ( 6. ) IT is not in dispute that petitioner has rendered services without break from 1984. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the matter of grant of increment for ad hoc period is covered by the circular dated 18-8-93 issued by the Finance Department of the Govt. of M. P. in which it is unequivocally laid down that ad hoc employee during the period of ad hoc officiation shall be given annual increments. It is not the case that it stood superseded. The circular has been issued by the State Govt. in the light of the decision rendered by the Tribunal in Dr. P. L. Maliks case (1991 MPST 15), earlier circular which provided that increments shall not be extended, were superseded as per circular dated 18-8-93. In view of the circular dated 18-8-93, order (P-8) is bad in law and cannot be allowed to stand. ( 7. ) APART from what has been mentioned herein before, it is clear that as per order (P-4) dated 7-5-1991, continuity of service was also ordered though the petitioner had actually continued in service; formal order of continuity in service had also been passed, once continuity has been granted, the defect of not issuing the formal order of continuance in service stood removed as per order (P-4), thus, I find that main basis to pass order (P-8) of recovery of increments stood wiped off. Moreover petitioner has not misrepresented; he was given the benefit by the department, hence, order of recovery cannot be allowed to stand in view of the decision of Apex Court in Punjab State Electricity board and another Vs. V. N. Sharma, 1995 SCC (L and S) 250. ( 8. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the order (P-8) cannot be allowed to stand. Same is hereby quashed. Writ petition is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred. Writ Petition allowed.