Ranjit Singh Sarkaria, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner was initially appointed as Punjabi teacher on 20.11.1996 on ad hoc basis at Government High School, Kharkhoda, District Sonepat. This appointment was made by the District Education Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 1400 -2600, which was revised to Rs. 5500 -9000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The Petitioner was relieved from her ad hoc service on 03.06.1998 as the regular incumbent had joined the post, which was occupied by her. After gap of nearly 21/2 years, the Petitioner was appointed on 16.11.2000 on regular basis pursuant to her selection through Subordinate Services Selection Board on the same post of Punjabi teacher carrying the same pay scale as she was carrying earlier. The Petitioner joined the post on 16.11.2000 at Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Panipat. She was subsequently transferred to Government Senior Secondary School, Model Town, Sonepat.
(2.) THE Petitioner claims that her pay was required to be fixed by taking into consideration the ad hoc service, as per the provisions contained in Punjab Civil Services Rules. It was so done and the Petitioner had continued to draw this pay. On account of the some observations by audit raised written on 12.12.2007, objection was raised with regard to fixation of pay of the Petitioner at Rs. 5675/ -on 16.11.2000. The pay of the Petitioner had been so fixed by granting benefit of ad hoc service which could not be done. There was excess payment made and it is, accordingly, stated that sum of Rs. 25,976/ -was required to be recovered from the Petitioner. The Petitioner pointed out that her pay scale was rightly fixed giving her benefit as per Rule 4.9 of CSR Vol -I, Part -I and by keeping in view the power to condone the delay as per Rule 4.23 of the rules. When the recovery was started, the Petitioner filed a representation for clarification. The Petitioner had made yet another representation on 05.04.2008 and relied upon the instructions issued on 05.12.2006, copy of which was annexed with the petition as Annexure P -9. When no further action was taken, the Petitioner approached this Court with the prayer that she would be entitled to benefit of ad hoc service rendered by her from 21.11.1996 to 30.06.1998 for the purpose of fixation of her pay and grant of increment on her re -appointment on the same post in the same department carrying the same pay scale.
(3.) THE Respondents have filed reply contesting the claim as made by the Petitioner. It is stated that the Petitioner had joined the post of Punjabi teacher on ad hoc basis as per the details given by her and subsequently had joined on regular basis on 16.11.2000. It is, thus, pointed out that there was a gap of two years and 16 months in both the appointments, which cannot be considered for condonation under Rule 4.23 of Punjab Civil Service Rules. This was pointed out by the audit party of the AG, Haryana and it was stated that the benefit of past service on ad hoc basis was not admissible and pay will have to be allowed at the initial stage on re -appointment of the Petitioner on regular basis. This justification is so offered to pass the impugned order directing the recovery.;