JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. Since the issues raised, in all the captioned writ applications, are more or less the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The writ applicants before are ad hoc Lecturers, Readers and Professors respectively serving with the Government Ayurveda Colleges situated in the State of Gujarat. They are aggrieved by the decisions of the Director, System of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy revising the pay scales (pay in the Pay Band) from their original pay scales stated in their respective appointment letters. They are also aggrieved by the action on the part of the authorities in effecting recovery of the salary already paid to them from their respective dates of appointment in excess in view of the refixation/fresh fixation of the pay scales. 3. The pay scales, which came to be provided at the time of their appointments in the year 2011, is as under: Sr. No. Cadre Pay Scale Pay scale payable 1. Lecturer Selection Scale (Professor) 15600-39100 Grade pay 15600-7600 =23,200 2. Lecturer Senior Scale (Reader) 15600-39100 Grade pay 6600 15600-6600 = 22,200 3. Lecturer 9300 – 34800 Grade Pay 5400 9300 + 5400 = 14700 4. For the sake of convenience, the Special Civil Application No. 5916 of 2012 is treated as the lead matter. 5. Lecturer Selection Scale (Professor) 15600-39100 Grade pay 15600-7600 =23,200 2. Lecturer Senior Scale (Reader) 15600-39100 Grade pay 6600 15600-6600 = 22,200 3. Lecturer 9300 – 34800 Grade Pay 5400 9300 + 5400 = 14700 4. For the sake of convenience, the Special Civil Application No. 5916 of 2012 is treated as the lead matter. 5. The petitioner, serving as an ad hoc Lecturer, Senior Scale (Reader), Class - I, has prayed for the following reliefs: "8 (A) By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned letter dated 22/3/2012 issued by Respondent No. 3 and consequent order of recovery order dated 7/4/2012 issued by respondent No. 4 by changing service conditions contained in their respective appointment letters which is at Annexure-A to the petition, and thereby further be pleased to quash and set aside the action of recovery from the salary period to the petitioners during period they are already worked at their respective position with respondent No. 4, and further be pleased to permanently restrain respondent No. 3 from taking any coercive action of dismissing the petitioners from their services as has been threatened by respondent No. 3 (B) By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, Your Lordship may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioners in their respective position and to pay the petitioners their salary as per the pay scale drawn by them presently. (C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Special Civil Application, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the order dated 22/3/2012 and consequent order of recovery order dated 7/4/2012 by changing service condition of the petitioners and by way of interim injunction restrain the respondents, their concerned officers, servants and agents from effecting any recovery pursuant to the impugned communication dated 22/3/2012 & 7/4/2012 respectively, including restraining their concerned officers, servants and agents from taking any coercive action of dismissing the petitioners from their services has been threatened by respondent No. 3. (D) An ex parte ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (C) above may be granted. (E) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as deemed just and proper and in the interest of justice." 6. (D) An ex parte ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (C) above may be granted. (E) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as deemed just and proper and in the interest of justice." 6. The facts of this case may be summarized as under: "6.1 The petitioner came to be appointed as an ad hoc Lecturer, Senior Scale (Reader), Class - I, vide appointment order dated 6th August 2011, issued by the Director of the Indian Medicine and Homeopathy (Respondent No. 3 herein), initially for a period of six months. On completion of six months period, his services came to be extended by a letter dated 9th February 2012. 6.2 The petitioner came to be appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 15,600/- in the Pay Band 3, wherein the eligible Grade Pay he is entitled to receive is Rs. 6,600/-. The petitioner starting drawing his salary at the basic pay of Rs. 18,750/- i.e. the pay in the Pay Band + Rs. 6,600/- aggregating to Rs. 25,350/-. 6.3 In the appointment letter dated 6th August 2011 for the post of ad hoc Lecturer, Senior Scale (Reader), Class - I, it has been stated that the basic pay would be in the Pay Band of Rs. 15,600 - 39,100/- with the Grade Pay attached to it of Rs. 6,600/-. 6.4 The petitioner accepted the appointment on the basis of the pay scale offered to him at the time of his appointment under the Sixth Pay Commission. 6.5 It is the case of the petitioner that the salary was fixed according to the Notification issued by the Finance Department dated 27th February 2009, as specified in Rule 8 of the Schedule - B attached to the Notification. 6.5 It is the case of the petitioner that the salary was fixed according to the Notification issued by the Finance Department dated 27th February 2009, as specified in Rule 8 of the Schedule - B attached to the Notification. The Notification dated 27th February 2009 defines the "Basic Pay" as under: "(9) "basic pay" in the revised pay structure means the pay drawn in the prescribed pay band plus the applicable grade pay but does not include any other type of pay such as special pay, etc." 6.6 The Notification also defines the "Pay in the Pay Band" as under: "(6) "Pay in the Pay Band" means pay drawn in the running pay bands specified in column (5) of Schedule 'C'." 6.7 Schedule - B attached to the Notification is as under: "Entry Pay in the Revised Pay structure for direct recruits other than those recruited under the fixed pay policies of the Government or those recruited on contractual basis appointed on or after 01-01-2006. IS (4440 – 7440) Grade Pay Pay in the Pay Band Total 1300 4440 5740 PB-1(5200-20200 Grade Pay Pay in the Pay Band Total 1800 5200 7000 1900 5830 7730 2000 6460 8460 2400 7510 9910 2800 8560 11360 PB – 2 (9300 – 34800) Grade Pay Pay in the Pay Band Total 4200 9300 13500 5400 14240 19640 PB-3 (15600 – 39100) Grade Pay Pay in the Pay Band Total 5400 15600 21000 6600 18750 25300 7600 21900 29500 PB-4 (37400 – 67000) Grade Pay Pay in the Pay Band Total 8700 37400 46100 8900 40200 49100 10000 43000 53000 12000 47100 59100 Note: Pay of direct recruits who enter service on the basis of Recruitment Rules, which specifically provide for grant of fixed pay during an initial period of certain years, shall fixed as above, only after the completion of such fixed pay period stipulated in the respective Recruitment Rules." 6.8 It is the case of the petitioner that he was drawing of total pay of Rs. 25,350/- right from the date of his appointment till the date of filing of this petition. Such salary was paid up-till March 2012. 6.9 All of a sudden, he received a letter dated 7th April 2012 from the Principal of the Ayurveda College, Junagadh, informing that the pay was wrongly fixed, and the revised pay would be Rs. 15,600/- with the Grade Pay of Rs. Such salary was paid up-till March 2012. 6.9 All of a sudden, he received a letter dated 7th April 2012 from the Principal of the Ayurveda College, Junagadh, informing that the pay was wrongly fixed, and the revised pay would be Rs. 15,600/- with the Grade Pay of Rs. 6,600/-. The same would aggregate to Rs. 22,200/-. As a result, the petitioner started suffering loss of Rs. 3,150/- per month." 7. Mr. P.R. Nanavati, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the action on the part of the authorities in reducing the pay without giving any opportunity of hearing could be termed as arbitrary and without application of mind. He submitted that the respondent No. 3 has no authority to take such decision in the absence of any specific instructions from the Finance Department of the State Government. He submitted that after following a regular recruitment process, the petitioner was appointed on the post, but, he is being treated as an ad hoc appointee since he could not be said to have been recruited through the G.P.S.C. Mr. Nanavati submitted that the G.P.S.C. has no time to undertake the recruitment, and as a result of it, the appointments are made on ad hoc basis. He submitted that otherwise, everything remains the same i.e. the duties, functions, responsibilities, etc. 8. Mr. Nanavati submitted that the last recruitment undertaken by the G.P.S.C. was twenty eight years back so far as the appointment on the post of Lecturer is concerned. So far as the Readers and Professors are concerned, the last recruitment through the G.P.S.C was in the year 2007. 9. Mr. Nanavati submitted that there being merit in all the writ applications, the same be allowed and the respondents be directed that the pay scale, as fixed in the appointment order, be paid to the petitioner. 10. On the other hand, this writ application has been vehemently opposed by the respondent No. 3. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed duly affirmed by Dr. J.M. Upadhyay, Deputy Director, Indian System of Medicine & Homeopathy inter alia stating as under: "5. I state that the letters dated 22.03.2012 and 09.04.2012 are just, legal and proper. 10. On the other hand, this writ application has been vehemently opposed by the respondent No. 3. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed duly affirmed by Dr. J.M. Upadhyay, Deputy Director, Indian System of Medicine & Homeopathy inter alia stating as under: "5. I state that the letters dated 22.03.2012 and 09.04.2012 are just, legal and proper. I state that the letter dated 22.03.2012 is specifically refer to that what pay-scale the ad hoc employee will be entitled to because the petitioner is not entitled to the pay-scale which is specifically meant for the employees who are regularly selected by G.P.S.C. A copy of R.O.P. Rules, 2009 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R-I to this reply. 6. I state that therefore, this only applies to the employees who are regularly recruited employees by G.P.S.C. The ad hoc employees are not entitled for the benefit of letters dated 22.03.2012 and 09.04.2012 and therefore, it is an undisputed fact that petitioner is an ad hoc employee and it is confirmed after the order passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1196 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No. 5795 of 2010. A copy of order passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1196 of 2010 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R-II to this reply. 7. I state that therefore, both the letters dated 22.03.2012 and 09.04.2012 cannot be said to be unjust or illegal in any manner and the petitioner is not entitled to the prayer as prayed for. I state that the petitioner is not entitled to the pay-scale of regularly recruited employee as per R.O.P. Rules, 2009 and therefore, consequential recovery order was passed which is just and proper." 11. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, the learned Assistant Government appearing for the State respondents submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of the R.O.P. Rules 2009 as he is not a regularly recruited employee. He submitted that the petitioner is an ad hoc employee, and is not entitled to receive the pay scale, which was initially offered along with the appointment order. He pointed out that by mistake, the pay scale was paid to the petitioner for some time. 12. He submitted that the petitioner is an ad hoc employee, and is not entitled to receive the pay scale, which was initially offered along with the appointment order. He pointed out that by mistake, the pay scale was paid to the petitioner for some time. 12. To the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3, a common affidavit-in-rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioners inter alia stating as under: "3 i) It is contended that the position of the petitioner is to be governed by appointment letter dated 9/8/2011 in the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 and grade pay of Rs. 5400/- it is not open for concerned respondent to reduce said salary without any justifiable reasons. ii) The calculation method is already prescribed in ROP 2009, under Rule -VIII, Schedule - B to the notification dated 28/2/2009 issued by the Finance Department, and if one carefully looks at the appointment letter, the calculation adopted under said appointment letter is strictly in accordance with said rule. However, subsequently respondent No. 3 arbitrarily and by misinterpreting the method of calculation of the basic pay has adopted a different formula which is contrary to the statutory provision and therefore same cannot be permitted to be effected. iii) It is also contended that the petitioner drew attention of the decision making authority towards the misinterpretation of the relevant rules as referred to herein above and had pointed out that the impugned communications issued at the behest of respondent No. 3 are absolutely arbitrary, illegal and not sustainable in law and are contrary to the prescribed rules which has statutory force. However the representation of the petitioner as well as other similar appointees have not been considered and without affording opportunity of being heard salary at which the petitioner was appointed is contemplated to be reduced in an absolutely high handed manner. 4. In response to the above referred contentions raised by the petitioner, respondent No. 3 Dy. Director of Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy Dr. J.N. Upadhyay has filed affidavit in reply. I have carefully gone through said affidavit in reply filed by Dr. J.M. Upadhyay, deponent of the affidavit under reply and have also carefully gone through relevant records of the case. Director of Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy Dr. J.N. Upadhyay has filed affidavit in reply. I have carefully gone through said affidavit in reply filed by Dr. J.M. Upadhyay, deponent of the affidavit under reply and have also carefully gone through relevant records of the case. I being the petitioner is fully conversant with the facts & circumstances of the case and, therefore, I am in a position to file this affidavit in rejoinder to the affidavit in reply submitted by deponent of the affidavit under reply. 5. At the outset I deny such & every averment made in affidavit under reply, as if each of the averment made therein is specifically deal with and denied, except those which are specifically admitted by me hereinafter. 6. With reference to para No. 1, 2 and 3 of the affidavit under reply, I have no comments to offer. 7. With reference to para No. 4 also I have no comments to offer since deponent of the affidavit under reply has reproduced prayer classes of the petition preferred by undersigned. 8. With reference to para No. 5, I deny that the letters dated 22/3/2012 and 9/4/2012 are just legal and proper as alleged or otherwise. I deny that letter dated 22/3/2012 specifically refers to what pay scale an ad hoc employee will be entitled to because petitioner is not entitled to pay scale which is specifically made for employees who are regularly selected by GPSC, as alleged or otherwise. On the contrary if letter at Annexure-A dated 22/3/2012 is looked into, it specifically mentions that the petitioner and other similarly situated will be paid salary as per ROP Rules 2009, under different cadres/class in which pay scale was granted to the petitioner while appointing him. Moreover there is nothing go to show that any separate pay scale is prescribed for ad hoc appointees and thus ROP Rules 2009 on which petitioner relies, the respondents are also relying upon the same rules and in such circumstances the only interpretation which can be adopted is to pay the salary to the undersigned as prescribed in the appointment letter and as has been elaborately dealt with by petitioner in the memo of the petition and therefore I deny what is stated contrary to by deponent of the affidavit under reply. 9. 9. With reference to para-6 of the affidavit under reply, I deny that the pay scale prescribed in the appointment letter only applies to the employees who are regularly recruited by GPSC. I deny that ad hoc employees are not entitled to have benefit of letter dated 22/3/2012. In fact there is no benefit prescribed in letter dated 22/3/2012 and 9/4/2012. On the contrary petitioner who is entitled to pay scale prescribed under ROP Rules 2009 has been taken away by the impugned communications dated 22/3/2012 and 9/4/2012. It is true that the petitioner is an ad hoc employee. However I say that the order passed in Letter Patent Appeal No. 1196 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No. 5796 of 2010 referred to in this paragraph has any relevance in so far as subject matter of present petition is concerned. It may be stated that petition was preferred by various ad hoc employees inter alia challenging the action of the Government to terminate services of the original petitioners and other similarly situated ad hoc employees, though regularly selected GPSC candidate were not available and Government wanted to relieve petitioners of said petition by appointing another batch of ad hoc employees which was not permissible, and this Honourable Court as well as Honourable the Apex Court have time & again deprecated such practice adopted by the Government to replace ad hoc employees by another batch of ad hoc employees. Therefore, following the earlier case law, this Honourable Court vide order dated 9/7/2010 protected the petitioners against their termination. Moreover challenge to artificial break given to petitioner and other similar such employees have also been condoned and all this has been accepted by the Government. Therefore appellants of said LPA withdrew said appeal in view of submission made by concerned AGP upon instructions of Mr. J.C. Rathod, Jt. Secretary (Ayurved). Thus subject matter of controversy in the said appeal as well as subject matter of challenge in the present petition are absolutely different and has no relevance with the subject matter of present petition. 10. With reference to para No. 7 of the affidavit under reply, I deny that letter dated 22/3/2012 and 9/4/2012 cannot be said to be unjust or illegal in any manner and petitioner is not entitled to the prayers as prayed for in the petition as alleged or otherwise. 10. With reference to para No. 7 of the affidavit under reply, I deny that letter dated 22/3/2012 and 9/4/2012 cannot be said to be unjust or illegal in any manner and petitioner is not entitled to the prayers as prayed for in the petition as alleged or otherwise. I deny that petitioner is not entitled to pay scale of regularly recruited employees as per ROP Rules 2009, particularly when there is not different standards prescribed for ad hoc employees and regular employees and therefore petitioner is entitled to pay scale prescribed in the appointment letter. 11. Apart from what is stated herein above, there are all the more reasons for this Honourable Court to consider the case in favour of the petitioner which are as under: a) Petitioner cannot be deprived of the salary prescribed under the appointment letter, without any justifiable reasons. b) The pay scale for different classes are prescribed under ROP Rules 2009 which has a statutory force. c) There are no different pay scales prescribed for regular employees and ad hoc employees. d) So far as teaching faculty of Ayurved colleges are concerned, GPSC has not held examination since last 28 years, except in year 2007 for appointment of Reader & Professor, however no examination is conducted for appointment in Lecturer category. To the best of the information of the undersigned in Ayurved Colleges run & managed by Government in State of Gujarat, there is hardly any GPSC selected candidate and most of the appointments are on ad hoc basis and such adhocism continue right since inception when Ayurved Colleges were established in the State of Gujarat. Thus today to give an example senior most Lecturer one Dr. J.U. Thacker was originally appointed on ad hoc and today also his status is ad hoc Lecturer and he has been granted all service benefits and as on today said Dr. Thacker is drawing salary as prescribed under ROP Rules 2009 of 6th Pay Commission and regular increments falling due from time to time has been granted to him, including all other service benefits which is otherwise available to regularly selected employees. Apart from Dr. J.U. Thacker all the ad hoc employees who have been recruited prior to 2008 are given benefit of 6th Pay Commission. Annexed hereto and marked Annexure-P/1 is copy of salary slip for the month of June 2012 of Dr. Thacker. 12. Apart from Dr. J.U. Thacker all the ad hoc employees who have been recruited prior to 2008 are given benefit of 6th Pay Commission. Annexed hereto and marked Annexure-P/1 is copy of salary slip for the month of June 2012 of Dr. Thacker. 12. Apart from the discrimination crated amongst teaching staff of Ayrved Colleges, to the best of my knowledge, so far as Medical Faculties (Allopathy) are concerned, Government appointed ad hoc employees in year 2008 or there about, and all those ad hoc employees of medical faculties are getting salary as recommended by 6th Pay Commission under ROP Rules 2009. I crave leave to refer to and rely upon copy of proof showing that ad hoc employees under medical faculties are getting benefit of ROP Rules 2009 and drawing salary as per 6th Pay Commission, if and when it is available to the undersigned. 13. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot be compared with contractual appointment as well as employees appointed under fix pay, as the petitioner is falling under category of direct recruitee on the sanctioned post as ad hoc employee and therefore the exception prescribed under Schedule-B of ROP Rules 2009 shall not apply to the present petitioner and similarly situated ad hoc Lecturers and petitioner being a direct recruitee against sanctioned post will be governed by the salary prescribed under ROP Rules 2009." 13. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to the pay scale as stated in the appointment order. 14. It is very unfortunate to note that although the petitioner could be said to have been appointed through a regular recruitment process, yet since the recruitment is not through the G.P.S.C., he is being treated as an ad hoc employee. It is conceded by the respondents that so far as the duties, responsibilities, functions, etc is concerned, it remains the same. It is also very depressing to note that the last recruitment undertaken by the G.P.S.C. for the post of the Lecturer was twenty eight years back. The last recruitment for the appointment on the post of the Reader and Supervisor was in 2007. 15. It is possible that the petitioner might retire as an ad hoc Lecturer. 16. It is also very depressing to note that the last recruitment undertaken by the G.P.S.C. for the post of the Lecturer was twenty eight years back. The last recruitment for the appointment on the post of the Reader and Supervisor was in 2007. 15. It is possible that the petitioner might retire as an ad hoc Lecturer. 16. There is no reply at the end of the State respondents to the averments made in paras - 11 (d) and 12 of the affidavit-in-rejoinder referred to above. If that be so, then there is no justification worth the name to reduce the pay scale. It is also difficult for me to accept the argument canvassed on behalf of the State respondents that Rule 8 would not apply to the ad hoc employees as it would apply only to the direct recruits and not to those recruited under the fixed pay policies of the Government or those recruited on contractual basis. The petitioner could neither be said to have been appointed under any fixed pay policies of the Government nor on contractual basis. His appointment, for all the practical purpose, could be termed as regular, except that he has not been appointed through the G.P.S.C., and that too for no fault on his part. 17. An appointment may be temporary or ad hoc or permanent, but the nature of work may be same, and the ad hoc appointment may be due to exigency of service, like the G.P.S.C. not able to undertake the recruitment, yet there can be no justification for paying less to an ad hoc employee i.e. by adopting a different method of payment than a regular Lecturer. 18. The fixation of such emoluments is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A temporary or an ad hoc employee may not have a claim to become permanent without recruitment through the G.P.S.C., but no discrimination can be made for the same job on the basis of method of recruitment. Such injustice is abhorring to the constitutional scheme [See: Karnataka State Private College Stopgap Lecturers Association v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 677 ] 19. To a certain extent, Mr. Such injustice is abhorring to the constitutional scheme [See: Karnataka State Private College Stopgap Lecturers Association v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 677 ] 19. To a certain extent, Mr. Nanavati is right that as such the decision in question was not taken by the State Government, but all of a sudden, it is the respondent No. 3, who conceived the brilliant idea of reducing the pay scale. 20. It is conceded by the respondents that identically situated ad hoc employees are being paid the regular pay scales with no deduction like the case in hand. Many instances have been given in the affidavit-in-rejoinder, and there is no reply to the same. It is equally well-settled that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' cannot be denied to the ad hoc or daily wage employees merely on the ground of they are not subjected to the service rules or disciplinary control like the regular employees. 21. In the case in hand, everything remains the same, except being an ad hoc employee. 22. In view of the above, I hold that the action on the part of the authorities, all of a sudden, without giving any opportunity of hearing to reduce the pay scales and then effecting recovery could be termed as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. As a result, all the writ applications succeed and are allowed. The impugned decisions taken in all the writ applications are hereby ordered to be quashed. 23. The authorities are directed to pay the salary to each of the writ applicants, as provided at the time of their appointments i.e. as stated in the letters of appointment. The difference of salary towards arrears shall also be calculated within a period of two months from today and be paid to each of the petitioners. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.