AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Raikote, J.—Four petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in not extending the special pay of Rs. 100-00 to the petitioners having extended the same to the equivalent posts viz., Mandal Revenue Officers as per G.O.Ms.No. 74 dated 25-3-1987is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and discriminatory. There is a further prayer that they should also be awarded the special pay of Rs. 100-00 on par with the Mandal Revenue Officer (hereinafter referred to as ''the M.R. Os.'') with effect from 25-3-1987.
First petitioner is working as Additional Head Clerk, I Additional Distict Court, Guntur. Second petitioner is working as Central Nazar in the District Court, Guntur. The third petitioner is working as Head Clerk in the District Court, Guntur and the fourth petitioner is working as Sheristadar, Sub-Court, Guntur. The petitioners have got common grievance and according to the case of the petitioners they are in the pay scale of Rs. 1330-60-1930-70-2630 (pre- revised). Since they belong to one common category on the basis of scale of pay which is equivalent to that of the M.R.Os. it is their case that they should also be given the same benefit that has been conferred on the M.R.Os. on the basis of the notification dated 25-3-1987 (hereinafter referred to as '' the impugned notification'').
To appreciate the contention of the petitioners it is necessary for me to immediately refer to the impugned notification dated 25-3-1987. The said notification states that the report submitted by the Pay Revision Commission 1986 is accepted for the purpose of granting Special Pays to certain categories of the officials with certain further riders. Para 2 of the said notification reads as under:
"Within a particular pay scale, such of those employees as have either additional responsibilities or a specially difficult nature of job to be performed alone should be paid Special pays and not the entire category as such and that where such a practice is in existence it should be abolished forthwith.
Going by the above norms he has reviewed the existing special pays and recommended special pays to eligible categories including rationlising payment of special pays to the existing categories and extending special pays to new categories. He has recommended for the removal of existing special pays in a few posts. He has also recommended that the rest of the posts receiving special pays now, continue to carry the special pays as at present.
All the above recommendations of the P.R.C. have been accepted by Government. Government therefore hereby order that:-
(a) the criteria laid down by the P.R.C. above in the matter of sanction of special pays should be followed by all the departments and that no proposal for Special pays which do not fulfil these criteria should be recommended to Finance and Planning (FW-TA) Department for consideration or ordinarily be sanctioned.
(b) the Special Pays recommended for revision in respect of certain posts as per Annexure-I to this order, be sanctioned to the holders of the posts indicated therein.
(c) the Special Pays approved now to new categories of posts as indicated in Annexure-II to this order be sanctioned to the incumbent of posts indicated therein, subject to the remarks in Column 4 thereof.
(d) in respect of certain categories where reduction of Special pay is ordered they may be paid Special pay as in Col.4 of Annexure-III to this order.
(e) the existing Special pays which are ordered for reduction in respect of one category and for increase in respect of another category to make the rates uniform as indicated in Annexure-IV to this order be sanctioned to the incumbents of posts, subject to the remarks in column 5 thereof.
(f) all the Special Pays indicated in Annexure-V to this order be discontinued in respect of the posts indicated therein subject to the remarks in column 4 thereof.
(g) all the other existing Special pays which are not indicated in the Annexures I to V be drawn by the incumbents at the rates they are now drawing.
This order shall take effect from 1-7-1986.
Necessary amendments to the A.P. Manual of Special Pay and Allowances will be issued separately"
The petitioners mainly rely on Annexure-II to this notification. The petitioners'' Counsel brought to my notice the special pay allowed to M.R.Os. under the heading "Farms in Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Departments". According to him, the petitioners are not concerned with the first part of that entry whereas they are concerned with the awarding of special Pay of Rs. 100-00 to the Mandal Revenue Officers (Deputy Tahsildars only). The further contention of the petitioner is that the pay scale of the M.R.Os. and the pay scale of the petitioners being at Rs. 1330-2630 is the same and it is their further case that they belong to one category, therefore, they are also entitled to the Special Pay of Rs. 100-00 awarded to the Mandal Revenue Officers. Their further case is that in the same Annexure-II under the heading Judiciary Department, the Head Clerks of the District Munsif Courts, Sub-Courts and Special Courts have been awarded Rs. 50/- as special pay and even this Rs. 50/- is denied to them even though the petitioners belong to the category of Head Clerk of the Judiciary Department and the same at least should have been awarded to them because their duties are similar to the Head Clerks of the District Munsif Courts, Sub-Courts and Special Courts. To deny the Special Pay of Rs. 50/- to the petitioners also violate the Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning resisted the writ petition and contended that the impugned notification is based on the Pay Revision Commission Report, 1986 and both under the report as well as under the notification, a classification has been worked out for the purpose of awarding special pay after giving due regard to the duties discharged by the persons belonging to a particular category and as such there is no discrimination and Article 14 is not violated. The learned Government Pleader contended that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, AIR 1989 SC 19 the Courts should not, normally, interfere with the opinion of Pay Commission and also the opinion of the Executive for conferring certain benefits having regard to the nature of the duties that are being discharged by them and the learned Government Pleader prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
In order to appreciate the arguments of both sides, it is necessary for me to refer to the Pay Revision Commission report of 1986. From the preamble portion of the report I find that amongst other points, the two important points that were referred to the Pay Revision Commission were regarding anomalies to be set right with reference to the pay scales, need and possibility for regrouping of the pay scales and also to examine the need for the various Special Pays, Compensatory and other allowances and other perquisites. In this writ petition I am concerned only with the special pay that was recommended by the Commission. Under the heading special pays in Volume I the Pay Revision Commission made the following recommendations regarding special pays to be awarded to certain category of persons:
"In the existing system of Special Pays, it is noticed that such payments are being made for different reasons. In fact, in a number of cases I find that those who are working in the headquarters office are being paid special pays for "arduous" nature of duties. The majority of Special Pays are covered under this category. I am unable to reconcile myself to the plea that the job in the headquarters is more arduous than the job in the field areas. While those of the employees who are usually in the field, when posted to headquarters, suffer certain disabilities and need to be compensated by the special pays, I feel that such, special pays need not be paid beyond a particular level of Officers. I, therefore, recommend that all special pays generally beyond the level of Assistant Directors should be removed. While listing out special pays payable, there might be some minor exceptions but generally this norm is adhered to. I suggest that a review of the special pay for All India Service Officers should be taken up and should be examined with reference to the revised pay scales recommended for them by the Central Pay Revision Commission.
I have also considered the issue of paying of special pay for a whole category as such. Normally pay scale is fixed on the basis of duties, responsibilities and qualifications. Within a particular pay scale, such of those employees as have either additional responsibilities or a specially difficult nature of job to be performed alone should be paid special pays and not the entire category as such. I recommend that where such a practice is in existence, it should be abolished forthwith.
Going by the norms set forth I have suggested special pays. I have also extended special pays to new categories only where necessary, while rationalising payment of special pays to the existing categories.
From the above extract, it is clear that the Special Pays are recommended on the basis of duties, responsibilities and qualifications. The report further clarifies that within a particular pay scale, such of those employees as have either additional responsibilities or a specially difficult nature of job to be performed alone should be paid special pays and not the entire category as such. With this principle, in my opinion, the Pay Revision Commission Recommended a special pay to the M.R.Os. at Rs. 100-00. The relevant portion of the recommendation is as follows:
"Mandal system has been introduced with Officers at Mandal level entrusted heavy responsibilities. Deputy Tahsildars who were hitherto working under the Tahsildars, Divisional Officers and Collectors have been placed in a position where they have to take on higher responsibilities. While in the Block set up, the Block Development Officer continues to function at the Mandal level, in the Revenue Department most of the Mandals are manned by Deputy Tahasildars. In view of the additional responsibilities entrusted to this leve, I recommend a special pay of Rs. 100 to those Deputy Tahasildars who are posted as Mandal Revenue Officer."
From the above extract, it is clear that the special pay was recommended to the M.R.Os. on the basis that they were entrusted with heavy responsibilities. Deputy Tahsildars who were hitherto working under the Tahsildars, Divisional Officers and Collectors, were placed in the position as Mandal Revenue Officers and in the Revenue Department most of the Mandals are manned by the Deputy Tahsildars and in view of the additional responsibilities entrusted the Commission recommended a special pay of Rs. 100-00 to the M.R.Os. The contention of the petitioners is that their duties are also as onerous as that of the Mandal Revenue Officers, therefore, they must also be given special pay of Rs. 100/-. What exactly is the nature of the duties of the M.R.Os. in comparison with the duties discharged by the petitioners, a comparative table is not made available. The petitioners simply stated that their duties are as onerous as that of M.R.Os. Except that no further details are given in the form of a comparative table so that I may assess these two posts in order to find out whether the duties of both of them are onerous and are of the same nature or not. However, the petitioners rely on the counter filed by the District Judge, the third respondent herein.
Though in the affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, the learned District Judge, Guntur has stated that the duties that are being discharged by the M.R.Os. and the petitioners are the same and both of them are onerous, I cannot accept this affidavit so far as it pertains to the M.R.Os. and the petitioners, since he is not competent to evaluate the nature of the duties of the petitioners and the M.R.Os., since the M.R.Os. are not working under him and they belong to entirely different department.
Having regard to these facts and circumstances, it is very difficult for me to say that the duties that are being discharged by the petitioners and that of the M.R.Os. are identical or at least both of them are equally onerous. It is very difficult to decide the nature of the duties of these two posts in a writ jurisdiction on the basis of afidavits. Infact, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. ''s case (1 supra) has held as follows:-
"The answer to the question whether two posts are equal or should carry equal pay depends upon several factors. It does not just depend upon either the nature of work or volume of work done. Primarily, it requires among others, evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. More often functions of two posts may appear to be the same or similar, but there may be difference in degrees in the performance. The quantity of work may be the same, but quality may be different that cannot be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties. The equation of posts or equation of pay must be left to the Executive Government. It must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission. They would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts. If there is any such determination by a Commission or Committee, the Court should normally accept it. The Courts should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration."
In the instant case, it is not contended by the petitioners that the special pay of Rs. 100-00 has been given to the M.R.Os. on any extraneous consideration. In fact, as contended by them, such a special pay has been granted to them on the recommendation of the Pay Revision Commission 1986. From the Law declared by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the decision referred to above, I am of the opinion that the matter is squarely covered by that decision and I cannot go into the question whether both the posts are of the same onerous nature or not. Therefore, the petitioners cannot complain of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India only because the M.R.Os. are given Special Pay of Rs. 100-00 per month.
As stated above, the Pay Revision Commission recommended the Special Pay not on the basis of any common factor of pay-scale but on the nature of duties discharged by a particular category of persons. Such category could be within one broader category. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief that they should be paid the Special Pay of Rs. 100-00 per month on par with the M.R.Os.
The petitioners alternatively contended that at least they are entitled to the Special Pay at the rate of Rs. 50-00 per month. It is their case that in Annexure-II to the impugned Notification, Head Clerks, District Munsiff Courts, Sub-Courts and Special Courts have been granted Rs. 50-00 per month as Special Pay. Since the petitioners discharge same onerous functions as the persons found under the category ''Judiciary Department'' at Annexure-II, they are also entitled to the Special Pay of Rs. 50-00 per month. For this proposition, heavy reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners on the report submitted by the Pay Revision Commission. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the report of Pay Revision Commission, 1986 under the Heading ''Supervisory Allowance'' found at page-96 of Volume-I, which reads as under:
"Supervisory Allowance:
Head Clerk: Judiciary Deptt. & Head Asst. Revenue:
Historically these posts were having Supervisory Allowance. I have recommended a scale of a Senior Assistant only, with Supervisory Allowance for all Head Clerks. Head Clerks in Judicial Department and Head Assistants in Revenue Department will qualify for a Supervisory Allowance of Rs. 50 per month."
From this part of the report of Pay Revision Commission, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that all the Head Clerks in the Judiciary Department have been conferred with this benefit of Rs. 50/- as Special Pay per month and the entry under the heading ''Judiciary Department'' at Annexure-II to the impugned Notification mentions only Head Clerks, District Munsif Courts, Sub-Courts and Special Courts. He contends that either by inadvertently or due to oversight, a kind of posts held by the petitioners has been omitted. According to him, the Head Clerk whether he works in the District Munsif Court or Sub-Court or Special Court or in the District Court discharges the same duties of supervisory in nature. Therefore, to deny the benefit of Special Pay of Rs. 50/- per month to the petitioners would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
I find a prima facie case in favour of the petitioners so far as the Head- Clerks in the Judiciary Department is concerned. The impugned notification accepts the report of Pay Revision Commission intoto. It recommends the awarding the Special Pay. From the extract of the report quoted above, it is clear that the Pay Revision Commission recommended the Special Pay of Rs. 50/- per month to the Head Clerks of Judiciary Department. It did not make any specific recommendation regarding awarding of Special Pay with regard to specific Head Clerks either working in the Munsif Courts, Sub-Courts and Sepcial Courts etc. When the first respondent accepts the report of Pay Revision Commission in the impugned notification, it goes without saying that the report has been accepted regarding all the Head Clerks working in the Judiciary Department irrespective of the fact whether they work in the District Munsif Courts, Sub-Courts or Special Courts or in the District Courts. As contended by the petitioners, the Law declared by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Purshottam Lal and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, applies to the facts of the case. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in this decision has clerly laid down the Law to the following effect:-
"Mr. Dhebar contends that it was for the Government to accept the recommendations of the Pay Commission and while doing so to determine which categories of employees should be taken to have been included in the terms of reference. We are unable to appreciate this point. Either the Government has made reference in respect of all Government employees or it has not. But if it has made a reference in respect of all Government employees and it accepts the recommendations it is bound to implement the recommendations in respect of all Government employees. If it does not implement that report regarding some employees only it commits a breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This is what the Government has done as far as these petitioners are concerned."
Applying the same principle, I am of the opinion that the first respondent has committed an error in not awarding the Special Pay to the Head Clerks of the District Courts as recommended by the Pay Revision Commission. At the cost of repetition, I should say that the Pay Revision Commission recommended Rs. 50-00 per month to all the Head Clerks of the Judiciary Department and the Pay Revision Commission did not restrict it only to the Head Clerks of District Munsif Courts, Sub-Courts and Special Courts. Therefore, the first respondent could not have denied the benefit of Special Pay of Rs. 50-00 per month to the Head Clerks of the District Court. The petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 are the Head Clerks in the District Courts. 1st petitioner is the Additional Head Clerk and the 3rd petitioner is the Head Clerk in the District Court. To deny the Special Pay to both the petitioners-1 and 3 would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The learned Counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that there could be a classification of the Head Clerks of Munsif Courts and Sub-Courts as one category as against the Head Clerks of the District Court and such a classification would be reasonable and, therefore, Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not be violated. But having regard to the nature of the duties of the Head Clerks working either in the District Courts or in the Sub-Courts or in the District Munsif Courts, I am of the opinion that there cannot a classification of this type. From the affidavit filed by the District Judge, Guntur on behalf of 3rd respondent, it is clear that the duties and the responsibilities of the Head Clerk in the District Court are more onerous than the duties of the Head Clerk of the Sub-Court and District Munsif Court, as the Head Clerk in the District Court would have the supervisory jurisdiction over the entire district. The Irelevant paragraph in the affidavit of the 3rd respondent reads as follows:-
"In reply to para-1, it is submitted that the first petitioner who swore to the affidavit is working as Head Clerk in the 1st Additional District Court, Guntur. The 2nd petitioner is working as Central Nazir, District Court, Guntur and 3rd petitioner is working as Head Clerk of District Court, Guntur and 4th petitioner is working as Sheristadar, Sub-Court, Guntur. The duties of the 1st petitioner as Head Clerk of 1st Addl. District Court, Guntur is to supervise the staff of the 1st Addl. District Court and prepare the pay bills of that Court, and attend to contingent expenditure of that Court and to assist the Court in the supervision of the Sub-Jails and Criminal Courts in the district. The duties of the 2nd petitioner as Central Nazir is to supervise the Amins and Process Servers of the district Court and allot work among them and prepare their pay bills and maintain the Service Registers and get increments of all Process Servers and attend to checking of T. A. bills and Amins of the entire district. He is also to maintain the registers regarding the work of the process establishments in the District and keep a watch over the work of the process establishments in the entire district. The duties of the 3rd petitioner, who is the Head Clerk of the District Court is to attend to the civil Courts accounts of all the district Courts, maintaining accounts, issuing cheques, investing funds in fixed deposits, encashing the fixed deposits etc. It is also his duty to prepare the pay bills of all the District Judges and entire District Court establishment and maintain the Service Registers of all the staff. It is also his responsibility to attend sanction of surrender leave, leave travel concessions of the District Court establishment. He is also to supervise the T. A. bills of the entire district and the pension papers of the entire district. He is also to lookafter the properties of the Judicial Department in the district and the on going works and proposals for further constructions in the district. He also is incharge of allocation of funds to all Moffusil Courts and for expenditure in the District Court for contingent as well as purchase of furniture and books. The 4th petitioner who is Sheristadar of Sub-Court, Guntur has to check all the plaints and proceedings presented in regard to both the Sub-Courts at Guntur and he has to supervise the accounts of both the Courts and has to look after the expenditure for the Court from the funds allotted by the District Court. He has also to supervise the entire establishment of the Principal Sub-Court as a Sheristadar and to attend to their applications for leave, surrender leave, leave travel concessions and maintain the Service Registers of the staff.
All of them are in the pay scale of Rs. 1330-60-1930-70-2630. Mandal Revenue Officers are also in the same scale of pay."
So far as the Head Clerks, Sheristadars and Nazirs of Judiciary Department are concerned, the District Judge would be competent to provide evaluation of the duties, though he is not competent to compare the duties with regard to the Head Clerks of the Judiciary Department and the M.R.Os. By accepting the nature of duties described by the District Judge, Guntur in his affidavit, I am of the opinion that the Head Clerk of the District Court discharges even more onerous duties than the Head Clerks of the Subordinate Courts. Therefore, applying the principle enunciated by the Pay Revision Commission, and having regard to the onerous duties that are being discharged by the Head Clerks, I am of the opinion that the Head Clerks of the District Courts would be entitled to the benefit of the Special Pay of Rs. 50/- per month. As asserted by the District Judge, Guntur, in his affidavit, when the Head Clerks of the District Courts are discharging more onerous duties than the Head Clerks of the District Munsif Courts, Sub-Courts, the Head Clerks of the District Courts would be entitled to the Special Pay awarded to the Head Clerks of the District Munsif Courts on par with them. The pay scale in which they are working has no relevance according to the Pay Revision Commission. It is only the nature of the duty that is relevant.
Having regard to these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Head Clerks of the District Courts cannot be excluded from the benefit of Special Pay of Rs. 50-00 per month and to that extent, there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India so far as the Head Clerks of the District Courts are concerned.
The posts of Nazir and Sheristadars are different from the posts of Head Clerks. The Pay Revision Commission in its report in Vol. II at page 196 has traced the history of these posts of Head Clerks, Nizirs and Sheristadars in the Judiciary Department. I am extracting the portion of the said discussion as follows:-
"According to the service rules, all these posts are in one category. The remarks of Justice N.D. Krishna Rao Committee are expected below and would give the correct picture of the existing situation in so far as the service rules are concerned.
''A Lower Division Clerk is promoted as Upper Division Clerk, but Senior Upper Division Clerks are posted as Record keepers, Deputy Nazirs and to certain other posts mentioned above. For the supervision work, Record Keepers, Deputy Nazirs and Head Clerks of Munsiff Courts or Sheristadar of Munsiff Magistrate Courts in Telangana are paid supervision allowance at varying rates. The Translator is not given any allowance; but he is on the slightly higher scale of Rs. 125-220. Most of the posts are grouped together under a single category in Judicial Ministerial Service Rules and are interchangeable. The Commission will consider separately about the supervision allowances, if any, attached to them. Apart from the supervision work, there is no substantial difference in their job content, such as to justify variation of their pay scales .''
"It is obvious that all these posts are in one category and are inter- transferable. For supervisory posts like the Head Clerk, there was a supervisory allowance. In other Departments also, the senior was generally posted as Head Clerk with a supervisory allowance but there was no interchangeability. It is possible that the P.R.C. was not properly informed of the existing position providing for interchangeability among Senior Assistants, Head Clerks, etc., of the Judicial Department and increased the pay scale of the Head Clerk of District Munsif Court only."
At page 197, there is a discussion in the report regarding the Sheristadars of the District Court regarding the revision of Pay scale with regard to these posts. One thing is certain from this extract that the posts of Head Clerk, Nazirs and Sheristadars are having common pay scale and are inter-transferable but different. Since the Pay Revision Commission recommends awarding of Special Pay of Rs. 50-00, only to the Head Clerks but not to the posts of Sheristadars and Nazirs, I may add that whenever such Sheristadar or Nazir functions as Head Clerk, he would be entitled to the Special Pay of Rs. 50-00 per month as recommended by the Pay Revision Commission, meaning thereby the awarding of Special Pay of Rs. 50-00 p.m. goes with the post of Head Clerk only but not with any other post. Therefore, applying he principles laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia (1 supra), having accepted the Pay Revision Commission Report, 1986 in its entirety regarding the recommendation of Special Pay so far as it relates to Head Clerks of Judiciary Department, the first respondent could not have denied the same to the Head Clerks of the District Courts in the impugned notification. Therefore, denying the benefit of Special Pay of Rs. 50/- per month to the Head Clerks of the District Court and awarding the same to the Head Clerks, District Munsif Courts, Sub-Courts, and Special Courts is discriminatory and even if the classification is worked out between these two categories, it cannot be reasonable. The basis of the classification adopted in the impugned notification, with reference to Pay Revision Commission Report, is discharging of onerous duties and the object of classification is to confer certain monetary benefit of Rs. 50-00 as Special Pay per month. In so far as the discharge of duties is concerned, the Head Clerks of the District Court discharge more onerous duties than the Head Clerks of the District Munsif Courts, Sub-Courts, and Special Courts, as the Head Clerks of the District Court are having supervisory power over the entire district. At any rate, the duties of the Head Clerk of the District Court are as onerous as that of the Head Clerk of the District Munsif Court. Therefore, the classification adopted by the respondent No. 1 would be unreasonable and arbitrary. Hence, I conclude that all the Head Clerks, whether they work in the District Munsif Court or in the Sub-Court or in the District Court belonging to one category having regard to the nature of their duties, are entitled to Special Pay of Rs. 50-00 per month.
The Writ Petition is allowed in so far as it relates to Petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 is concerned and they are entitled to the relief only to the extent that they would be entitled to the benefit of impugned notification to the extent of Special Pay of Rs. 50-00 per month. The writ petition pertaining to petitioners 2 and 4, who are Nazir and Sheristadar respectively, is hereby dismissed. The respondents are hereby directed to award the Special Pay of Rs. 50-00 per month to petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 with effect from the date of the impugned notification. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that by virtue of an interim order, the petitioners have received a Special Pay at the rate of Rs. 100-00 per month from the date of the interim order and there may not be any order for refund of the excess amount than what has ultimately been granted by the final order.
I do not agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners cannot have a larger relief than what has been granted ultimately in the final order. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the excess amount that the petitioners have received by virtue of the interim order in excess to what has been granted in this order shall be refunded to the State by the petitioners. However, it is made clear that the petitioners may request the Authorities to adjust the amount payable by mem to the State in their future salary that may fall due.
Before parting with the Judgment, I may add that since the petitioners are claiming individual reliefs, they should have filed separate writ petitions by paying separate Court fees. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioners sumits that there are other similar writ petitioners, where this question would be argued, and he would undertake to pay the balance of Court fee, in case if it is held against the petitioners in the other connected matter. This undertaking is recorded.