JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. 1. Taking into consideration short point involved, the present writ petition has been decided with the consent of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed as a LDC on 6th September, 1989 in the regular pay scale. She appeared in the departmental test on 22nd October, 1994 and passed the same. She was, therefore, required to be treated as regular from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 6th September, 1989 in terms of Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred as "the Rules of 1957"). The respondents have denied her grant of selection scale in terms of circular dated 25th January, 1992 and has, therefore, approached this court praying for grant of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service from the date of her initial appointment. It is stated that the respondents have wrongly denied the same although as per the Rules of 1957, her service was to be counted from the initial date of appointment as she had cleared the performance test. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit in support of averments and submits that several persons similarly situated like petitioner whose names have been mentioned in the additional affidavit have already been granted benefit of selection scale from the date of initial appointment. 4. In reply to the writ petition, the respondents have stated that date of appointment is not material and it is from the date the petitioner cleared performance test. Her service has to be counted for the purpose of grant of selection scale as she cleared the performance test on 22nd October, 1994. Her service for grant of selection scale would be counted from the date with regard to other persons who have been granted selection scale from the initial date of appointment, it is submitted that same have been revised later on. Learned counsel submits that grant of selection scale has been done accordingly in view of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors Vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi, reported in 2009 (12) SCC 49 . 5. I have considered the submissions. 6. Learned counsel submits that grant of selection scale has been done accordingly in view of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors Vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi, reported in 2009 (12) SCC 49 . 5. I have considered the submissions. 6. In the case of Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (supra), the Apex Court has held that any person, who has been appointed on ad hoc basis, would not be entitled to get his ad hoc service counted for the purpose of grant of selection scale and it would be only from the date of regularisation the benefit shall be granted. Keeping in view the aforesaid, if case of petitioner is examined, it is noticed that petitioner's initial appointment was not on ad hoc basis but was an appointment against a temporary post of regular pay scale. As per the Rules of 1957, as it then existed, a person was required to pass typing test/performance test for the purpose of grant of increments. Thus regularly selected LDC can only be granted increments after he passes the performance test, however, if he has passed the performance test, increments shall be applicable from the date of initial appointment alone. In view thereof, the petitioner was to pass the performance test on 22nd October, 1994, would be entitled for increments from the date she completes one year from her initial date of appointment. Thus she will be treated to be a regularly appointed employee from the initial date and her service has to be counted from the said date for the purpose of grant of selection scale. In view of the above, action of the respondents in treating the petitioner to be ad hoc till she passes the performance test is wholly erroneous. 7. The writ petition accordingly deserves to be allowed and the respondents are accordingly directed to revise her pay and allowances and make her pay fixation after grant of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service treating her appointment on substantive basis with effect from her initial date of appointment dated 7th September, 1989 i.e. when she joined the service. The petitioner is stated to have retired during pendency of the writ petition. It is, therefore, directed that respondents shall also accordingly revise her pensionary and retiral benefits. The petitioner is stated to have retired during pendency of the writ petition. It is, therefore, directed that respondents shall also accordingly revise her pensionary and retiral benefits. The exercise in this regard shall be conducted within a period of three months henceforth. It is made clear that petitioner would be entitled to initiate contempt proceedings without further notice if compliance is not made. No costs.