Patna High Court
Bihar Rajya Koshagar Avam Lekha ... vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 4 September, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2007(1)BLJR108
Author: Ramesh Kumar Datta
Bench: Ramesh Kumar Datta
JUDGMENT Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.
Page 0109
1. Both these writ petitions involve common issues and with the consent of the parties have, therefore, been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.
Page 0110
2. Heard Dr. Sadanand Jha, Sr. counsel for the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 3890/06, Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, learned Counsel in the other case and learned J.C. to G.P. VIII.
3. The petitioners seek quashing of the decision of the State Government in the Finance Department contained in Letter No. 1437 F (2) dated 8.3.2006 (Annexura-1) by which the Collectors have been directed to absorb the petitioners by appointing them as deputationists in the Treasuries from the Boards/Corporations in the Joint Cadre of L.D. Clerks of the Collectorate in the scale of pay of Rs. 3050-4590/- after relaxing maximum age limit. The petitioners further seek quashing of the Resolution contained in Memo No. 1096 dated 22.2.2006 by which the cadre of the employees in the Treasuries of the State has been amalgamated with the Collectorate cadre of L.D.C. Clerks in the scale of pay of Rs. 3050-4590/- in so far as it concerns deputationists from the Boards/Corporations like the petitioners. Petitioners further seek quashing of the Cabinet decision contained in Memorandum No. 7128 dated 30.12.05 in compliance of which the aforesaid two Impugned orders have been issued.
4. The petitioners were earlier employees of the various Boards/Corporations. On account of acute shortage of staff in the Treasuries a policy decision was taken in the Government files at the level of the Chief Minster on 4.6.1996 to appoint on deputation in the Treasury such persons from the Boards/Corporations who are at least graduates with preference to B.Com. having at least experience of 5 years in Accounts and their age must not exceed 45 years. It was decided that initially the deputation should be for three years and if after the said period their work is found satisfactory then steps must be taken in terms of the rules and directions of the State Government for their regular absorption in the Treasury cadre as Class-3 employees in that cadre upon which their salaries shall be that of the Treasury cadre. No deputation allowance was to be paid to them for the said period. But it was specifically provided that they will get pay protection in the scale of pay they were employed in their respective Boards/Corporations.
5. Pursuant to the said decisions applications were sought by letter No. 447 dated 24.8.1996 from all the Boards/Corporations and the petitioners and others applied for the same and those who were found fit their selection was made for deputation. The petitioners continued to work on the posts to the satisfaction of the higher authorities and it is stated that some of the persons whose work was found unsatisfactory were sent back to the parent department. However, no decision was taken regarding their absorption though the petitioners continued to function for a fairly long period.
6. Subsequently in a batch of writ petitions being C.W.J.C. No. 8894 of 2002 and its analogous cases, Awadhesh Sharma and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors., by order dated 7.1.2003 this Court directed that the future of the petitioners should not hang in balance and a final decision regarding their absorption or not has to be taken at the earliest by the State Government and it was directed by this Court to the respondent authorities to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law at the earliest. Thereafter by letter contained in Memo No. 1437 F(2) dated 8.3.2008 all the District Magistrates were directed to appoint the petitioners and other deputationists from the Boards/Corporations in the Joint Cadre of the clerks of the Page 0111 Collectorate on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Pay Scale of Rs. 3050-4590/. The petitioners are aggrieved by their absorptions on the lower post and the lower pay scale.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the actions of the authorities are arbitrary and discriminatory. It is submitted that on account of the Fodder Scam the State Government came to the conclusion that the Treasuries have to be strengthened since there was a massive shortage of staff in the treasuries due to large scale vacancies on the sanctioned posts. Accordingly, on account of such circumstances, decision was taken for getting the graduates having experience at least of five years in the Accounts in the Boards/Corporations to work in the Treasuries initially on deputation and thereafter to be absorbed after three year so as to strengthen the treasuries. It is submitted that the petitioners had in fact much higher qualifications than was the requirement for the Treasury Accountants who were working at the time, being only matriculates. It is further submitted that most of the petitioners were in fact drawing higher pay scale than those working as Accountant and, therefore, it was decided to grant them pay protection also. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that as a matter of rule the deputationists should be absorbed on the post and in the pay scale which is equivalent to the posts they were holding in the parent Boards/Corporations and at the worst if they were not given that pay scale and post they are at least entitled to be given the same benefits as the Treasury Accountants who had been working from before 1999 have been given by the State Government. It is submitted that the said Treasury Accountants have been given the scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- whereas with respect to the petitioners it has been decided to absorb them in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that once a decision had been taken as far back as on 4th June, 1996 at the level of the Chief Minister the same amounts to an assurance that they ought to have been absorbed as Accountant in the Treasury on the same pay scale that has bean granted to Treasury Accountants and further they cannot be put in the position like ordinary employees of the Collectorate and transferred and posted anywhere in the Collectorate service outside the treasuries for which they have neither the training nor the experience and moreover, it is not the work for which they have been brought from the Boards/ Corporations in the Government.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also laid emphasis on the fact that by Letter No. 58 dated 17.1.1998 the deputationists were asked to file an affidavit that they would accept the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800/- being the scale of Treasury cadre and they would not claim pay protection (Anneuxre-2). Aggrieved by the same the deputationists challenged the said order in C.W.J.C. No. 1347/98. Thereafter the State Government issued Letter No. 220 dated 17.3.1998 withdrawing the letter dated 17.1.1998 and accordingly the writ petition was dismissed as not pressed by order dated 30.8.1999. It is submitted by learned Counsel that it is, thus, clear by the said letter dated 17.1.1998 that the State Government took a decision to give the petitioners the pay scale that may be decided by the Court and the Court decided to give all the employees of such cadre pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- and, thus, they are also entitled for the same. However, from perusal of the letter dated 17.1.1998 I find that the provision of taking affidavit from the individual deputationist was withdrawn stating that it was not required and it further stated that the deputationists of the Treasures shall during Page 0112 the period of their posting in treasury be given pay protection according to the direction of the State Government. Thus, as a matter of fact, there is no reference to any such direction of this Court in any other case or the case of the petitioners. In this regard learned Counsel for the petitioners has emphasised that the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800 had been revised to Rs. 4000-6000/- and, thus, in any case the decision to absorb them in pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 is totally uncalled for.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the Judgment and order dated 28.7.2001 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3063/92 (Annexure-23). The said case was filed by the Accountants working in different Treasuries in the State who were earlier functioning in the different Collectorate but subsequently on the creation of the Treasury Directorate 1n the year, 1975 they had joined the said Directorate around the year, 1979 and earlier by Resolution dated 21.7.1993 which was approved by the Cabinet in its decision on 12.1.1994, the Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts, under which different Treasuries/ Sub-Treasuries were functioning, was dissolved and a decision was taken that the services of the Accountants of the Treasuries of the Finance Department like the petitioners would be henceforth under the control of the Deputy Commissioner/Collector of the District concerned. As the said resolution was directly affecting the rights of those petitioners they moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7703/93 and a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 17.1.1994 disposed of the writ petition in view of the stand taken by the State-respondents that by issue of the said resolution dated 21.7.1993 the service conditions of those petitioners shall not be affected in any manner. It was the stand of the State in that case that the petitioners were put under the administrative control of the concerned District Magistrate/ Deputy Commissioner and by the said resolution, neither the nature of work, nor their salary shall be affected. In C.W.J.C. No. 3063/92, an interlocutory order dated 2.3.1993 was passed earlier that the petitioners shall continue to function against the post of Accountant/Accounts Clerk and continue to receive salary on the basis of the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 which was provided with effect from 1.1.1986. Subsequently the Fitmant Committee (6th Pay Revision Committee) was constituted and it recommended the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 for the post of the Accounts Clerks/Accountants of the Treasuries. Aggrieved by the same the matter with respect to those petitioners was referred to the Fitment Appellate Committee which noticed the pendency of the said writ application and interim order dated 2.7.1999 and after discussing the facts gave its recommendation at page 398 as follows:
_____________________________________________________________ Sl. No. Designation : Existing : Recommended : pay scales : pay scales by : : Fitment : : Committee.
_____________________________________________________________ :
21. Treasyry : 4000-6000 : 265 personnels Accountant : : who opted Treasury cadre from Collectorate in 1979 recommended Rs. 5000-8000 otherwise no change.
______________________________________________________________ Page 0113
10. It is evident from above that the Fitment Appellate Committee had recommended pay scale of Rs. 6000-8000 for 265 persons who had come in the Treasuries cadre from the Collectorate in 1979 but did not otherwise interfere with the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 for the other treasury accountants, which recommendation was treated as binding upon the State Government and the employees by the judgment and order dated 26th July, 2001, and it was directed that the respondents shall pay the writ petitioners the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 from which date the recommendations of the fitment committee were implemented by the State Government but material benefits was only allowed from 1.4.1997. The claim of the petitioners is that they stand on the same footing as the Treasury Accountants and they cannot, thus, equated with the clerks of the Collectorate cadre and, hence, they should also be given the same pay scale of Rs. 5000- 8000 as has been allowed to the Treasury Accountants by the Judgment and order dated 26.7.2001.
11. The further submission on behalf of the petitioners is that in view of the various letters written from 1996 by various officers of the Finance Department Directorate of Treasuries was dismantled but so far as the Treasury cadre is concerned, it is still intact. It was never amalgamated or merged with the Collectorate cadre which is mainly manned by the Clerks/Correspondence Clerks/Bill Clerks, Diarists and such persons are not Accountants or Accounts knowing staff whereas in the Treasuries the ministerial staff comprise only of Accountants. For the said reason it is stated that the said decision of the Government as contained in Annexure-2 merging the cadre of the Treasuries with that of the Collectorate is irrational, arbitrary and the same cannot be permitted to stand and the functioning in the treasuries can never be treated as at par with and merged with the Collectorate cadre nor be made intertransferable as has been done by the impugned order contained in Memo No. 1096 dated 22.6.2006. It is also the stand of the petitioners that Council of Ministers was misled into taking the said decision by the notes which were put up by the officers of the Finance Department.
12. Learned Counsels for the petitioners also submit that the deputation of the petitioners was not a simple deputation and they were selected after due process of selection having higher qualification, i.e. graduate with five years experience in Accounts work with preference to Commerce Graduate in different Treasuries and further there were specific stipulations that the deputationists will be given pay protection and on their work being found satisfactory for a period of three years they would be considered for absorption in the Treasury cadre and, thus, they had a legitimate expectation at the time of offering their services that they would be absorbed with pay protect on, and they would be absorbed against the post equivalent to the posts in which they were borne in the Boards/Corporations. That having not been done by the impugned order dated 8.3.2006 as contained in Annexure-1 it is arbitrary and discriminatory and fit to be set aside.
13. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the policy decision taken at the level of the Chief Minister on 4.6.1996 would override the earlier decision dated 12.5.1994 of the Council of Ministers by which the cadre of the Non-Gazetted employees of the Treasury and Sub-Treasury had been decentralised at the District level.
Page 0114
14. In support of their stand learned Counsel for the petitioners also relied upon various decisions of this Court, Supreme Court and the Jharkhand High Court. The first case relied upon by learned Counsel is G. Govinda Rajulu v. The Andhra Pradesh State, (Sic) Corporation and Anr. , in which a direction was issued that the services of the employees of the Andhra Pradesh State Construction Corporation Limited, which were sought to be terminated on account of the closure of the Corporation, shall be continued on the same terms and conditions either in the Government departments or in the corporations. Learned Counsel also relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T. Shantharam v. State of Karnataka and Ors. 1995 (1) SLR 674 in which it was held that though the deputation should be on the post equivalent to which he was Holding in the parent department but since the appellant was Initially though mistakenly deputed to hold higher post in the Food and Civil Supplies Department and had obviously discharged his duties and higher responsibilities to the satisfaction of all concerned, at this distance of time (about 32 years), it would be highly unjust to send him back to hold the post in the parent department.
15. Learned Counsel has strongly relied upon the decision of the case of K. Gopinathan v. Union of India , in which it was laid down by the Apex Court that on absorption of a deputationist from the State Government to the C.B.I. his basic pay cannot be reduced even though his overall pay would become higher than his pay in his parent department. In the case of B.L. Mandawat v. The Union of India and Ors. 1993 (5) SLR 29 relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners directions were issued by the Supreme Court to absorb the teachers on closure of the schools in the service of AEE Society which had taken over the said school on the basis of the assurance made by the Government in the writ petition filed earlier. It was directed that the teachers be absorbed as per the assurance given and supernumerary posts be created, if need be for the purpose.
16. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon a decision dated 16.3.1994 of the Division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9790 of 1992 in which it was directed that class IV employees of the Bihar State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. are entitled to be given the benefit of pay protection in the same terms as has been extended to Class-III employees of the Corporation and they are to be adjusted against the pay scale which is not less than the pay scale to which they were entitled in the Corporation and they would get the emoluments which they were receiving in the Corporation before absorption in Government service.
17. Lastly learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment and order dated 22.8.2006 passed in W.P.(B) No. 742 of 2004 of a learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Satyendra Kumar Dubey v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. in which it was laid down that the Accountants of the Treasury appointed on compassionate ground after 1979 are entitled to pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 as was granted to those Accountants of Treasury who were appointed prior to 1979 on the principle of equal pay for equal work. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the said principle should be applied in the case of the present petitioners also and they should be given the benefit, on the principle of equal pay for equal work of the same pay scale had been granted to the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 3063/92.
Page 0115
18. The stand of the State respondents in their counter affidavit is that initially the State Government took a decision that the treasury Clerks will have no separate cadre, rather they would be treated as the member of Collectorate cadre and ultimately the said decision got concurrence of the cabinet on 27.9.1994. The said decision was taken in the direction of streamlining and strengthening the functioning of the treasuries to enable the District Magistrates to have a proper control on the functioning of the Treasury staff since the D.M. is also in overall charge of the functioning of the Treasury. Subsequently by resolution No. 47 dated 25.1.1999 the Government took a decision finally dissolving the Directorate of Treasury and placing the employees of the Treasury as a part of the cadre of the District under the control of the District Magistrate. However, with respect to such employees who were governed by the interim order of C.W.J.C. No. 3063 of 1992 their service conditions will not be changed and their salary, promotion, seniority, etc. benefits would be given to them as earlier. Ultimately by resolution No. 1096 (f) dated 22.2.2006 issued by the Finance Department, taking into consideration the earlier Cabinet decision dated 12.5.1994 followed by the Resolution dated 25.1.1999 as well the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7703/93, the cadre of the Treasury staff was amalgamated with that of the Collectorate cadre and the said post was made transferable inter-district. After the said order was issued, by the further letter No. 1437 (f) dated 8.3.2006, on the basis of the State Government decision, it was directed that deputationists from the different Boards/Corporations shall be absorbed in the Collectorate cadre of lower Division Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590.
19. It is stated on behalf of the respondents that the said decision was taken since the Government had taken a policy decision dated 20.12.2000 demerging the cadre of clerks in the Collectorate into lower division clerk and upper division clerk and under the said policy decision new appointment can be made only on the post of lower division clerk carrying a pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- and, thus, the petitioners have rightly been absorbed on the said post with pay protection in the light of the decision taken at the time of their deputation
20. It is the categorical stand of the State that so far as the various decisions of this Court with respect to the Treasury Accountants are concerned they concerned only such employees who had earlier come into the cadre of the Treasury Directorate before the decision to dissolve it and the said decisions of the Court one way or the other has to be read with respect to the said context and have no application to the case of the petitioners who had no vested rights at the time of the decision taken by the State Government in the year, 1993 to dissolve the Treasury Directorate and decentralise the Treasuries.
21. The first question to be considered is whether the petitioners can challenge the Memo No. 4096 dated 22.2.06, in so far as they are concerned, by which the cadre of the employees in the Treasuries of the State has been amalgamated with the Collectorate cadre of clerk. From a perusal of the said resolution dated 22.2.2006 it is evident that the amalgamation is of a general nature by which the clerical cadre of the Treasuries have been amalgamated with the clerical cadre of the collectorate and the Class-IV employees of the Treasuries have been amalgamated with the class IV employees of the Collectorate, and it is further provided in the said resolution that the single cadre of clerk in the collectorate shall Page 0116 comprise of the earlier clerical posts of the treasury and Collectorate and they shall be inter transferable. The same decision has been laid down for Class-IV employees. From the Judgment dated 26th July, 2001 in C.W.J.C. No. 3063/92 it would appear that the matriculate clerks who opted for the Treasury cadre have been granted the revised pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 and against the said decision the respondents preferred L.P.A. No. 165/02 and the resolution dated 22.2.06 provides that at present their service conditions and salaries shall remain as before. The submission of the learned Counsel that the said decision of the Government is not in keeping with the various earlier letters and resolutions of the Finance Department can have no relevance particularly for the reason that the said resolution has been issued on the basis of the decision taken by the council of Ministers. However, without going into the merits on that point it is evident that the petitioners were mere deputationists until their services were absorbed in the State Government by letter No. 1437F (2) dated 3.3.06 (Annexure-1) whereas the said resolution of the State Government is dated 22.2.06, i.e., prior to the petitioners becoming Government servants.
22. For the said reason I hold that the petitioners cannot challenge the decision of the Government with respect to the reorganisation of the cadre and post taken prior to their entry into government service. Hence, the challenge to the said resolution is held as not maintainable on behalf of the petitioners and it is accordingly rejected.
23. The next question to be considered is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to be absorbed on the post equivalent to the post that they were holding in the Boards/Corporations, as the same has also been claimed by them. It is true that from the law laid down by the Supreme Court on this point it is clear that the deputation of any person must be on a post which is equivalent to the post that he was holding in parent organisation and that the terms and conditions on which deputation has to be made should also be commensurate with posts carrying same rank and status as that in the parent organisation, and accordingly, if the deputationist is absorbed in the loanee organisation it should be on the post which is equivalent to the post that he was holding in the parent organisation and also giving him benefits of the same pay scale and other benefits. However, the case of the petitioners stand on a different footing. It is a fact that most of the petitioners had been holding posts carrying better pay scale in the Boards/Corporations when they had come to the Treasury. In view of the fact that for strengthening the functioning of the Treasuries and further that most of the employees of the Boards/Corporations were not being paid even their salary and the Boards/Corporations were on the verge of closure, a decision was taken to invite applications from such employees who were willing to serve in the Treasuries and were Graduate having five years experience of accounts work. The nomenclature of the said post is not important; what is relevant is that the posts on which the petitioners were deputed were carrying the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800/- at the relevant time and on revision the revised pay scale for such posts has been fixed as Rs. 4000-6000/-. The said revised pay scale has not been touched even by the Fitment Appellate Committee, and with respect to the Treasury Accountants/Accounts clerks who had been functioning prior to the decision taken by the Government to dissolve the Directorate of Treasuries, the Fitment Appellate Committee recommended the higher pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-. It should also be remembered that the Fitment Appellate Committee and the Fitment Committee had mentioned Page 0117 the nomenclature of the post as Treasury Accountants and recommended the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-. The said pay scale was also the pay scale of the Clerk of the Collectorate cadre at the relevant time and after de-merger of the same that of the Upper Division Clerk. It is, thus, evident that on their own the petitioners had applied for being selected for deputation in the Treasuries and agreed to work on a post which was a lower post carrying lower scale of pay than they were receiving in the Boards/Corporations and, therefore, it is not open to them to turn around and claim that they should be absorbed on a higher post or higher scale.
24. For the aforesaid reasons it is held that the petitioners are entitled to be absorbed only on the post on which they lad come to work or its equivalent post. It should also be kept in mind that till the relevant time, i.e., on 20.12.2000, when the decision of the Government was taken to demerge the cadre of the Clerk in the Collectorate into Lower Division Clerk and Upper Division Clerk carrying respective pay scales of Rs. 3050-4590/- and Rs. 4000-6000/-, the similarly situated persons were functioning on the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000-/ as recommended by the Fitment, Committee and Fitment Appellate Committee. The Clerks in the Collectorate working from before the demerger would be entitled to the higher pay scale of the Upper Division Clerk, and after demerger the lower scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- would be available for new entrants into the service. The deputationists do not stand on the same footing as fresh entrants into Government service. In the presents matter once a decision for absorption has been taken it has to be seen as to what post or equivalent post carry pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- and they can only be absorbed on the said posts. Since a decision has been taken by the State Government to merge the cadre of the employees functioning in the Treasury into that of Collectorate, the petitioners would be entitled to be absorbed not on the post of Lower Division Clerk with pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- but that of Upper Division Clerk having the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-.
25. It is also made clear that although the petitioners had agreed to work on a lower post but it was a clear stipulation in the decision that had been taken at the Chief Minister's level, as communicated by subsequent letters inviting the applications and deputing the petitioners in the Treasury that they would be given the benefit of pay protection, i.e., they would continue to receive what they were getting in their parent Boards/ Corporations. Such is also the admitted position as stated in paragraph No. 4 of the supplementary counter affidavit of the respondents dated 10.8.2006 in C.W.J.C. No. 3890 of 2006 wherein it is stated that the petitioners are entitled to pay protection in the light of the decision taken at the time of their deputation.
26. In view of the above stand in the counter affidavit as well as the fact that the petitioners had been given pay protection throughout their deputation I hold that the petitioners would also be entitled to pay protection on the post of upper Division Clerk after absorption as they were receiving from before. So far as the various decisions cited by learned Counsel for the petitioners are concerned, those decisions have to be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of the cases in which they have been rendered. So far as the decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3063 of 1992 is concerned that was clearly with respect to the ex-employees of the Directorate of Treasuries which the petitioners are not and, thus, they cannot claim the same benefit as was given to protect the status and salary of such employees of the Directorate of the Treasuries on their being brought into the Collectorate cadre.
Page 0118
27. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of G. Govinda Rajulu (supra) is a one paragraph decision and no facts are disclosed in the said decision to indicate that in what circumstances the said order had been passed. Moreover, that was a case of closure of undertaking the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
28. So far as the case of T. Shantharam and K. Gopinathan are concerned it relates to deputationists simplicitor and, as pointed out above the same would not apply to the present case. The case of the petitioners stands on a different footing since they had themselves agreed to come on deputation on the lower post in the Treasuries than they were working in the Boards/Corporations and in such circumstances, for the reason that they had accepted to work on a lower post, they cannot claim absorption on a higher post.
29. The case of B.L. Nandawat is a case of closure decided on the basis of assurance given by the Central Government and, thus, cannot apply to the facts of the present case.
30. Similarly, the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Nityeshwar Pandey and others passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9690 of 1992 was also on the basis of the similar benefits granted to the Class-III employees in terms of the government decision at the time of absorption and thus it cannot straightaway apply to the present case.
31. The decision of the learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Satyendra Kumar Dubey was also related to the fixation of cut-off date of 1979 in arbitrary manner. It could not be justified by the State Government and, thus, direction in that case was accordingly passed.
32. In the result, this writ petition is partly allowed and the respondent authorities are directed to absorb the petitioners with effect from the date of the earlier order for absorption on the post of Upper Division Clerk in the Collectorate Cadre of Clerks giving them the benefit of pay protection as they had been receiving in the Boards/Corporations.
33. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.