Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, challenging the order passed by the respondent, dated 02.09.2011, fixing the scale of pay of the petitioner, as Pirka Land Record Draftsman, instead of as Senior Draftsman, in the payment of pensionary benefits and for recovering the excess amount paid to the petitioner, based on the wrong fixation of her pay scale. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the services of the petitioner, in the post of Draftsman, had been regularized on 25.08.2005, after her satisfactory completion of the probation period. While so, on 15.02.2010, the petitioner had been temporarily promoted, as Prika Land Record Draftsman, in the scale of pay of Rs.5200-20,200+Rs.2400 Grade pay. Thereafter, on 18.03.2010, the petitioner had been promoted, as a Senior Draftsman, in the scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800+Rs.4200 grade pay. While so, on 09.06.2010, the scale of pay of the petitioner, in the post of Senior Draftsman had been fixed at Rs.14,370/-, with effect from 23.03.2010. While so, the petitioner had retired from service, on 30.06.2010, on attaining the age of superannuation. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the pensionary benefits, due to the petitioner, ought to have been fixed, based on the pay scale fixed for the post of Senior Draftsman, which she had been holding till she had retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the amounts paid to the petitioner, based on the higher scale of pay, cannot be recovered, as the said payments had not been paid, based on the misrepresentation of the petitioner. He had relied on the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.496, Finance (Pension), dated 01.08.2006, relating to the calculation of the pensionary benefits of the Government employees, on their attaining the age of retirement. He had placed reliance on the following decisions of the Supreme Court, in support of his contentions (i) Sahib Ram Versus State of Haryana and other reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 (ii) Bhagwan Shukla (Vs.) Union of India and other reported in 1994 6 SCC 154 . He had placed reliance on the following decisions of the Supreme Court, in support of his contentions (i) Sahib Ram Versus State of Haryana and other reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 (ii) Bhagwan Shukla (Vs.) Union of India and other reported in 1994 6 SCC 154 . (iii) M.A. Hameed (Vs.) State of A.P. and another reported in 2001 9 SCC 261 5. He had also placed reliance on the order passed by this Court, in W.P.No.34086 of 2006, dated 15.10.2009, in support of his contentions. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the promotion of the petitioner, as a Senior draftsman, was purely temporary in nature and it had been made clear, in the order of promotion, that the petitioner had been promoted, temporarily, and that she cannot claim any right in the promoted post, or the salary due to the said post. As such the promotion was purely temporary in nature. In such circumstances, it is not appropriate for the petitioner to claim pensionary benefits, based on the pay scale fixed for the post of Senior Draftsman. He had further submitted that the government order in G.O.Ms.No.496, Finance (Pension), dated 01.08.2006, is not applicable to the petitioner, as the said Government order was applicable only in respect of persons occupying a permanent post. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent, and on the perusal of the records available and on considering the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that it would not be open to the respondent to recover the amount paid to the petitioner, as salary, even though it was based on the higher scale of pay fixed, in respect of the post occupied by the petitioner, based on her temporary promotion to the said post. It is not the case of the respondent that the higher salary had been paid to the petitioner, due to the misrepresentation or fraud committed by the petitioner. However, with regard to the fixation of pensionary benefits, the prayer of the petitioner to fix the pension, based on the scale of pay received by her in the promoted post of Senior Draftsman, cannot be granted. 8. However, with regard to the fixation of pensionary benefits, the prayer of the petitioner to fix the pension, based on the scale of pay received by her in the promoted post of Senior Draftsman, cannot be granted. 8. From the records available, it is clear that the petitioner had been promoted to the post of Senior Draftsman on a purely temporary basis and it had been made clear, in the order promoting the petitioner to the said post, that she cannot claim any benefits, based on such promotion. Further, this Court is of the view that the decisions relied on by the petitioner would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner had been in the post of Pirka Land Record Draftsman, only for a period of nearly one year, and in the post of Senior Draftsman, for nearly 2 years. As such the petitioner cannot claim any right to the promoted posts, as it had been made clear in the order granting such promotion that the promotion would be purely temporary in nature and that she would have no right to claim any benefits due to the said posts. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.