The court emphasized the importance of adherence to rules in appointments and seniority placement, justifying the impugned order of conferring ad hoc status and fixing salary in the lower scale, but also recognized the legal precedent against recovery of excess emoluments.

( 1 ) THE petitioner-Ravindra Nath Chaubey is working in class-III cadre of Judgeship of Ballia. In course of time, he came to be promoted from the initial scale of pay of Rs. 3,050-4,500 to Rs. 4,000-6,000. He was also placed in the gradation list senior to certain employees, namely, pashupati Nath and others, who had challenged his regular appointment as well as seniority. The learned District Judge, Ballia, passed an order on 16. 11. 1999, a copy of which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition whereby he found that the petitioner was merely an ad hoc employee and in view of the Government Order dated 8. 6. 1990, he was not entitled even to the privilege of yearly increment in his salary. He issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be placed in the initial scale of pay of Rs. 3,050-4,500. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply. A final order dated 17. 12. 1999, has been passed, which has been impugned, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the present writ petition, by the District Judge, Ballia. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner has been placed in the pay scale of Rs. 3,050-4,500 and a total sum of rs. 90,273 (Rs. 83,869 as the amount of excess emoluments consequent upon his fixation of salary in the scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000 and Rs. 6,404 on account of leave encashment) was directed to be recovered in 90 monthly instalments out of which 89 instalments were for Rs. 1,000 each while last instalment was to be of Rs. 1,273. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner on variety of grounds, particularly the one that the learned District judge has exhibited a sense of irresponsibility and insubordination by violating the orders passed, on the administrative side, by this Court. The petitioner, therefore, has prayed by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that the order dated 17. 12. 1999, annexure-1, passed by the District Judge, Ballia, be quashed and he be commanded to pay the salary to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000.

( 2 ) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. The stand taken on behalf of the district Judge, Ballia, is that after properly construing the orders passed by this Court, on the administrative side, and taken into account the factual aspects, the impugned order has been rightly passed which calls for no interference in the writ jurisdiction by this Court by invoking the extraordinary powers.

( 3 ) HEARD Sri R. N. Singh, senior advocate, assisted by Sri A. P. Sahi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Sudhir Agarwal, appearing on behalf of the District Judge, Ballia.

( 4 ) AFTER having given thoughtful consideration to the material placed before this Court and the admitted position which is culled out from the respective averments made by the parties, I have no hesitation in prefacing the decision with the observation that the various orders passed by this court, on the administrative side, have created serious problems to the District Judge, Ballia to contain the resentment of class-III employees. As would be shown presently, the orders, on the administrative side, were passed without taking into consideration the stark realities and the facts as obtaining in the Judgeship as well as against the Rules. This Court, on the administrative side, is supposed to issue proper guidance to the District Judges subordinate to it. The present case is an example which exhibits a sense of total disregard of the Rules by this Court as the orders issued to the District Judge could not have been passed in any circumstance. In order to fortify the above observation, which may appear to be somewhat unsavoury in nature, it is necessary to unfold the narrative of the case.

( 5 ) THE petitioner who was an outsider was appointed as Paid Apprentice on purely temporary basis initially for a period of about two months on 15. 9. 1981. The temporary appointment given to the petitioner reads as foll