1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondent not to count his service as 'Pagi' on fixed pay during the period from 1964 to 1.1.1976, when his services were regularized and he was placed in regular pay scale. The petitioner has mainly relied upon the case of another coworker who was, in similar circumstances, granted the benefit of consideration of his previous service on fixed pay. It is, however, clearly stated in the affidavitinreply of the Assistant Examiner, Local Fund Accounts, Nadiad, that there is no provision under which the period of work in fixed pay could be considered as pensionable service. The other case of Shri R.R.Valand, relied upon by the petitioner, is stated to have been approved because the period of fixed pay was shown as pensionable in his pension papers and they were approved through oversight. It is further submitted for the respondent that the expenditure of fixed pay is considered contingent or miscellaneous expenditure of the office, and it is the posts in regular establishment carrying regular pay scales and such posts either temporary or permanent are pensionable. Rest of the posts which were not sanctioned in the set up of the establishment were not pensionable posts. It is specifically contended that a mistake cannot be repeated knowingly and no legal right could be granted on the basis of mistake committed in some other case.
2. The petitioner has failed to place on record any circular, resolution or rule for counting previous service as pensionable. Therefore, no relief could be granted as prayed in the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed and Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
*malek (D.H.Waghela, J.)