The specific provisions of a rule prevail over general provisions, and erroneous payments should not be recovered if there was no misrepresentation by the employee.

Dipak Misra, J.

1. Regard being had to the homogeneous character of the controversy in issue, this batch of writ appeals was heard analogously and is disposed of by a singular order. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts in Writ Appeal No. 1098/2006 which arises out of W.P. (S) No. 5843/04 are adumbrated herein.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts which are imperative to be exposited for adjudication of the lis are that the respondents (original petitioners) were appointed as Shiksha Karmis under the M.P. Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1997 Rules') in various grades, i.e., Grades I, II and III. The appointments were made on probation basis. The pay-scale for the said posts are prescribed in Schedule 1 to the Rules. The services of the respondents were confirmed on completion of three years probation and they were extended the benefit of increments on completion of one year of the date of initial appointment by order dated 4.2.2003. When the respondents were enjoying such benefit the Commissioner, Public Instructions issued an order dated 8.7.2004 directing that the benefit of increments which were given to 'Shiksha Karmis' on completion of one year of probation period after confirmation of their services had been extended erroneously and the same was to be recovered and the amount was to be adjusted out of the salary to be paid. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the said authority, the respondents-'Shiksha Karmis' filed writ petitions invoking the extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the same and to command the respondents to continue the benefit.

3. It was contended before the learned single Judge that once the period of probation was completed, they were entitled to increments on completion of one year of probation from the date of their initial appointment and the same was rightly paid to them. Reliance was placed on various circulars and Fundamental Rule 26 to build the edifice to sustain the stand that the action of the State was sensitively susceptible.

4. Before the learned single Judge it was also urged that the release of increments was in accordance with the circulars dated 9.12.1974, 30.5.1977 and 6.6.1979 and clarificatory note given by the Accountant General. It was also argued that Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules does not create any impediment for grant of increments to the employees who are confirmed. The decision rendered in P.R. Malik v. State of M.P. and Ors. 1991 MPHT 15 was pressed into service to highlight that the principles laid down therein would apply to the petitioners inasmuch as when ad hoc employees have to be given the benefit of the increments during ad hoc officiation, they cannot be dealt with differently.

5. The stand and stance put forth by the petitioners was resisted by the respondent -State contending, inter alia, that under Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules, 'Shiksha Karmis' were appointed on probation for a period of three years which was extendable for another two years and during the said period they were to be paid fixed pay, i.e., the minimum of the pay scale with dearness allowance and only on successful completion of probation, regular pay-scale is payable. It is worth noting that it was put forth that the appointment was equivalent to apprentice. A distinction was made between the civil servants and the Shiksha Karmis and justification was given for recovery of the amount that was erroneously paid.

6. The learned single Judge, as is manifest from the order, referred to Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules, Rule 25 of the M.P. Panchayat Service (Recruitment and General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1999 (in short 'the 1999 Rules'), M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 (for brevity 'the 1961 Rules'), the circular issued by the State Government on 30.5.1977, clari