JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that respondents be directed to count the period of service rendered by him from the date of his initial appointment on 11/4/1966 with the Gram Panchayat and accordingly revise the pension and other retiral dues and respondents may be directed to refund him Rs.1,28,490/- with interest @12% p.a. consequent upon change of date w.e.f. the completion of 9, 18 and 27 years. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner was initially appointed with the Gram Panchayat Nagar, District Bharatpur on the post of Sub Nakedar on 11/4/1966. Gram Panchayat Nagar later on upgraded to the level of Municipal Board vide notification dated 17/12/1975. Petitioner thus continued to serve at the same place where he was initially appointed till he retired on 30/6/2001. Respondents vide order dated 22/11/1993 granted him benefit of two selection scales on completion of 9 & 18 years on 1/9/1996 as per notification of the Government dated 25/1/1992 and accordingly granted him benefit of revision of pay scale under Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1996 w.e.f. 1/9/1998 and thereafter vide order dated 25/1/2003 granted him third selection scale on completion of 27 years of service. For doing so, respondents treated the initial date of appointment of the petitioner as 11/4/1966 when he was appointed in the Gram Panchayat. Respondents however illegally without any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, altered the date of his initial appointment by treating his appointment having been made afresh with the Municipal Board Nagar on 17/12/1975. Learned cited last pay certificate of the petitioner dated 11/8/2003 showing that petitioner was drawing basic pay of Rs.5,750/- with allowances, double pay of Rs.9361/- however, his pension payment order which is on record indicates that his pension was determined as Rs.1112/- taking his basic pay to be Rs.2224/-. Learned counsel argued that qualifying period of service has to be treated from the date of his initial appointment in the Gram Panchayat and this has been qualified by circular of the Directorate of Local Bodies dated 10/5/1978. He in support of his argument, relied on the Shankar Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., {2004 W.L.C. (Raj.) UC 637} . 3. He in support of his argument, relied on the Shankar Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., {2004 W.L.C. (Raj.) UC 637} . 3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that petitioner was appointed with Gram Panchayat only on consolidated salary and that when subsequently Gram Panchayat was upgraded to Municipal Board, thereafter, he was paid regular pay scale. It was argued that Municipal Board is a separate entity and the petitioner could be granted benefit of selection scale and other retiral dues only from the date of his initial appointment with the Municipal Board. Since the benefits aforesaid were granted to the petitioner erroneously from the date of his initial appointment in Gram Panchayat, they were rightly withdrawn. It was contended that respondents merely sought to correct the mistake and therefore there was no requirement of any notice or opportunity of hearing being provided to the petitioner. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the writ petition be dismissed. 4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions aforesaid and perused the material on record. 5. What is not in dispute is the fact that factually, the appointment of the petitioner was 11/4/1966 and that he was appointed in the very same Gram Panchayat Nagar which was later upgraded as Municipal Board on 17/12/1975. It is thus clear that petitioner continued to serve at the place where he was initially appointed. Grant or status of Gram Panchayat which underwent change to Municipal Board, this factor alone could not be taken as basis by the respondents to completely ignore the service rendered by the petitioner to the Gram Panchayat. Even if the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc temporary basis but if this appointment was followed by regular appointment, such service which shall render on ad-hoc temporary basis was still liable to be counted towards qualifying period of service for grant of pension. Even if the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc temporary basis but if this appointment was followed by regular appointment, such service which shall render on ad-hoc temporary basis was still liable to be counted towards qualifying period of service for grant of pension. Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 clearly provides that qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes over the charge to such charge, either substantively or in officiating or temporary capacity and Rule 13(2) provides that for the purposes of sub-rule (i), the expression "service" means service under the Government and paid by that Government from the Consolidated Fund but does not include service in a non-pensionable establishment, work-charged establishment and service in a post paid fro contingencies, unless such service is treated as qualifying service by that Government. 6. In the present case, Service Rules, 1951 are applicable to the employees of the Municipal Board and this has been qualified by the Directorate of Local Bodies itself in their Circular dated 10/5/1978, may be for the purpose of counting the qualifying period of service for the purpose of compulsory retirement that such qualifying service has to be counted from the date of initial appointment. This court in Shankar Lal supra had taken a same view where petitioner in that case rendered service in Central Water Commission and Technical Training Centre Kota from 5/10/1959 to 17/2/1973 and after closure of Technical Training Centre, the services of the petitioner were transferred to the State Motor Garage Rajasthan Jaipur on the post of Turner. Meantime, petitioner in that case stood retired on 31/7/1991 but his service period w.e.f. 5/10/1959 to 17/2/1973 was not considered by the respondents as qualifying service for the purpose of grant pension. In those facts, co-ordinate Bench of this Court while allowing the aforesaid writ petition held that there shall be no break in service and petitioner is entitled to full pension as having rendered continuous qualifying service and intervening period would be treated as part of qualifying service for grant of pension. 7. Moreover, respondents have not served any notice upon the petitioner prior to withdrawing the pension granted to him or otherwise provided to him opportunity of hearing. Date of grant of selection scale was unilaterally changed behind the back of the petitioner and the respondents recovered a sum of Rs.1,28,490/- from the petitioner. 7. Moreover, respondents have not served any notice upon the petitioner prior to withdrawing the pension granted to him or otherwise provided to him opportunity of hearing. Date of grant of selection scale was unilaterally changed behind the back of the petitioner and the respondents recovered a sum of Rs.1,28,490/- from the petitioner. That being done so only because they have conferred the period of service rendered by the petitioner with the Gram Panchayat and they calculated only such period of service which he rendered with the Municipal Board. For the reasons aforesaid, such decision given for the purpose of counting the period of 9, 18 and 27 years of service, to pay to the petitioner benefit of selection scale could not be justified. 8. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to calculate the entire length of service rendered by the petitioner since the date of his initial appointment on 11/4/1966 with the Gram Panchayat for the purpose of qualifying service for grant of pension and other retiral dues. Action of the respondents in changing the date of grant of selection scale aforesaid on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service, respectively and consequential recover is also held to be illegal and unconstitutional. Respondents are directed to refund the recovered amount of Rs.1,28,490/- and revise the pension and other retiral dues of the petitioner. Petitioner shall be entitled to receive interest @6% p.a. on the aforesaid amount which becomes due to be paid to him. 9. Compliance of the judgment shall be made within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents.Writ Petition Allowed. *******