ORDER D.K. SAHU, J The submission of the applicant, in brief, is that she was appointed as an attendant in Class IV cadre. Subsequently pursuant to the order of this Tribunal she was appointed as a junior clerk on ad hoc basis vide order dated 2.6.92 at Annexure-5 and since then she has been continuing in the said post and has been transferred from place to place. She submits that she has not been granted time bound advancement benefits. Accordingly she has filed this application to declare that she has been continuing as a junior clerk on regular basis, she be granted T.B.A. scale and A.C.P. 2. Respondents have filed a written counter. It is submitted that the applicant was given irregular appointment her service has been discontinued in the year 1985. She had filed an original application vide O.A. 631/1992 to allow her to continue as junior clerk and typist. Accordingly this Tribunal passed necessary order in her favour. Subsequently she was appointed as a junior clerk on ad hoc basis vide order dated 2.6.92. She has been so appointed without adhering to the recruitment rule. It is submitted that the applicant is not entitled to get TBA as provided under ORSP Rule, 2008 as she has been continuing as an ad hoc employee. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the pleadings. 4. As the applicant has not undergone recruitment test while she was appointed as junior clerk, she has been appointed on ad hoc basis pursuant to the order of this Tribunal. So there cannot be any declaration that she is a regularly appointed clerk. 5. The counter of the respondents reveals that the applicant has been continuing in the post of junior clerk since 1992, be it on ad hoc or otherwise. She has been getting increment in the time scale of pay and has been transferred from one place to other. In the circumstances, when she has been working in the same post and grade for more than 15 years, there is no reason to grant her time bound advancement scale. 6. She has been getting increment in the time scale of pay and has been transferred from one place to other. In the circumstances, when she has been working in the same post and grade for more than 15 years, there is no reason to grant her time bound advancement scale. 6. In the case of Pramila Kumar Padhi v. State of Orissa and others, reported in (2010) 2 ATT (OAT) 475, this Tribunal have held as follows:- "It would be amply clear from this that the applicant cannot be held back from getting the benefits of TBA on account of not being inducted into a grade while she is still drawing the scale of the post, nor can she be held back on the ground that she is a contract appointee and therefore not covered by the ORSP Rules, 1998. Intention of TBA Rules has been made clear without any ambiguity. This is to rescue the holder of a post from stagnation after reaching the end of the scale or carrying on without promotion for as long as 15 years. Considering the status of a regular teacher and that of a contract teacher for the purpose of application of ORSP Rules, 1998 the difference between them having been obliterated by the judgment of the Tribunal the residual difference of non-entitlement of E.I. is an unintended technical obstacle on the way of entitlement to the TBA, nor is this a reliable proof of status when the post and scale both are regular." 7. Once the scale of pay under ORSP Rules, 1998 is made available, the other benefits cannot be denied. So the applicant having worked for 15 years continuously in the post/grade of jUl1ior clerk, has been getting the scale of pay attached to the post prescribed under ORSP Rules, 1998, is entitled to get TBA scale after completion of 15 years. 8. Accordingly respondents are directed to grant TBA scale of pay to the applicant after completion of 15 years from the date of appointment as a junior clerk in the year 1992, if he is otherwise suitable for such scale of pay. 9. This be done within three months from receipt of this order. 10. The O.A. is accordingly disposed of. No order as to cost. O.A. disposed of.