Gauhati High Court
Director General Of Police And Ors. vs B. Barnalata Devi And Ors. on 12 January, 2007
Equivalent citations: (2007)2GLR320, 2007(2)GLT567
Author: U.B. Saha
Bench: U.B. Saha
JUDGMENT U.B. Saha, J.
1. By this writ appeal, the State appellants have assailed the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 5.10.2001 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1388 of 2000, wherein and whereunder directed the appellants to regularise the service of the petitioners in the post of Constable/Assistant Teachers and Constable/Matron within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the judgment and order.
2. Heard Mr. A. Mohendro, learned Counsel appearing for the State Appellants and Ms. Puspa, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. The facts in nutshell, required to be adjudicated in this appeal are that the writ petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 (respondents herein) were initially appointed in the years 1981 and 1983 as Riflemen Assistant Teachers, Rifleman of the Unit School of the 1st Bn. Manipur Rifles (for short hereinafter referred as M.R.) on ad hoc basis for the period of six months or till the posts are filled up on regular basis, which ever is earlier; and petitioner No. 9 was appointed as Matron (non-teaching staff) in the said school on 23.6.1981 on similar terms and conditions, which was established in the year 1953 as Primary School to cater the needs of the children of serving M.R. Personnel/Manipur Police. The said school was upgraded to Class VIII standard and recognized by the Board of Secondary Schools, Manipur in the year, 1978 and it was given grant in aid in the year 1980 for three teachers and one LDC, as the said school was/is not a Government institute and runs by the Manipur Rifles Personnel. In the year, 1985 reorganization of the Manipur Rifles were ordered and all the lady employees of the Manipur Rifles Battalion were transferred to Civil Police as lady constables. Since there was no post of Riflewoman in the Manipur Rifles all the ad hoc employees of grade III posts including the present petitioners were considered for regularization as woman constables and accordingly class III-DPC was constituted to find out suitability of the ad hoc lady employees of Class-Ill posts including the writ petitioners for appointment to the post of woman constables. The writ petitioners were found suitable and fit for appointment as women constables by the DPC and they were appointed, as women constables and transferred to the District Police, Imphal District as such on 10.12.1985. They were asked to undergo basic training for women constables but all of them refused to undergo the compulsory basic training course for women constables and resigned from the posts of women constables. On humanitarian ground the school authority allowed the petitioners to work as Assistant Teachers in consolidated pay in the said private school run by the 1st Bn. M.R. personnel. The petitioners were not given salary which they were getting before the reorganization but allowed a consolidated pay of Rs. 700 p.m. without any service benefits. Subsequently, they were provided Rs. 1,000 (Rupees one thousand) p.m. as a consolidated pay. As certain problem arose regarding the service conditions of the petitioners since 1985, they made representations to the authorities for creation of posts of Assistant Teachers or for enhancement of grant-in-aid, so that the petitioners and others could work as regular employees of the said school. Such representations were examined and report was submitted by the chairman of the School to the Director General of Police, appellant No. 1 herein vide letter dated 27.5.1988 wherein the status of the employees at the time was explained. The appellant No. 1 submitted a detailed report to the Chief Secretary on 21.11.1995. But ultimately the government did not agree with the proposal and could not take any policy decision in the manner suggested by the Director General of Police for absorbing the writ petitioners, who were already given the chance for regular appointment in the Police Department, Government of Manipur as women constable and also there is no post of Rifleman/ Assistant Teacher in the regular establishment of 1st Bn. M.R. Aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, the writ petitioners (respondents herein) filed the aforesaid writ petition with a prayer to direct the respondents (appellants herein) to regularise the service of, the writ petitioner Nos. 1 to 8, as Teachers and writ petitioner No. 9, as Matron, in the 1st Bn. M.R School and pay regular salaries at par with the approved teachers/staff/employees in the said school w.e.f. their respective initial appointments as teachers/non-teaching staff.
4. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 of the writ petition, i.e., the Chairman, Management Committee of the 1st MR School (Combined), Chairman of the 1st High School and Director General of Police, Manipur respectively filed affidavit in opposition stating, inter alia, that after reorganization of the Manipur Rifles in the year 1985 there was no room for Riflewoman or Woman Rifleman in the M.R. set up and hence, the writ petitioners were given option of becoming regular women constables and their services were regularised as women constables and directed to undergo compulsory basic training course at Manipur Police Training School. MPTS, Pangei. But the writ petitioners refused to work as woman constables and submitted their resignation from their services. The respondents also denied the right of the writ petitioners to be regularised as Assistant Teachers and Matron as prayed for. The respondent No. 4, i.e., Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur also contested the case by way of filing an affidavit in opposition stating, inter alia, that the writ petitioners were offered the posts of women police constables in the year 1985 considering their long service along with others. Some of the ladies who were employed in the said school had already joined as woman police constables but the writ petitioners refused to join as woman police constables and they continued as teachers in the said school even after the reorganization of the Manipur Rifles in the year 1985 on payment of consolidated pay to be given by the school management committee, over which the government has no control. He has further contended that had the petitioners agreed to serve as woman constables then problems could have been avoided and the said school being a Government aided school, having five numbers of government approved teachers including one LDC, it is not permissible to regularise the service of the petitioners. In the said affidavit in opposition it is also stated that as per the Recruitment Rules, ladies cannot be appointed as Rifleman in the Manipur Rifles Battalion and there is also no sanctioned posts of the Assistant Teachers and Matron in the Police Department and, the Home Department has nothing to do with the enhancement of grant in aid as the said school was not established with the approval of the Home Department, Government of Manipur.
5. The points for decision arises in this appeal are mainly; whether the ad hoc appointee like the writ petitioners engaged without following the procedures and approval of the appellants authority have any legal right to be regularised for mere continuation in the service for long time or not and also; whether the writ petitioners have any legal right to ask for enhancement of grant in aid to the school for continuation of their services in the absence of any proposal from the side of the school management or not; and whether the court has the power to direct the authority, to regularise the service of the employees in the non existent posts and/or, to take any policy decision to create posts.
6. Mr. A. Mohendro, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the writ petitioners were engaged without following the prescribed procedures as required ignoring the constitutional scheme, hence, their engagement itself is a wrong and illegal one and on the basis of the said wrong and illegal engagement, they have no right to ask for regularization and more so, the ad hoc appointment does not create any vested right to be regularised. He further contended that the nature of the engagement or appointment cannot be changed due to long passage of time, and being irregularly engaged, the petitioners are not entitled to be regularised when there is no sanction posts as well. Mr. Mohendro, further submits that though the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors. the Apex Court clearly stated that as a one time measure, the State may regularise the service of those persons whose appointments are not illegal but merely irregular, but according to him, appointments of the writ petitioners are not irregular but wrong and illegal and hence, they are not entitled to the benefit of one time regularization as observed by the Apex Court. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge ought not to have passed the order directing the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioners, who were appointed on ad hoc basis for a time limit, when there were no posts in existence. He also submitted that writ court normally do not direct the government to take a policy decision for creating posts and to regularise the service of the petitioners, creation and abolition of posts being the prerogative of the Executive. Mr. Mohendro, learned Counsel for the appellants has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Piara Singh and Ors. in support of his contention that the court cannot direct the Executive authority to frame any policy or the court cannot interfere with the policy decision of the government unless it is violative of any provisions of the constitution and or any statute. The learned Counsel has also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Tech-Executive (Anti Pollution) Welfare Association v. Commissioner of Transport Dept and Anr. and State Fishery officers Association, W.B. and Anr. v. State of W.B. and Anr. apart from State of A.P. v. V.C. Subbarayudu and Ors. wherein the Apex Court has held that:
It is a matter of policy for the State Government which in its wisdom decided to create a separate cadre in the State by absorbing the Divisional Accountants working on deputation in the State and who were under the administrative control of the Accountant General. The Supreme Court cannot give any direction to the State Government to have a different policy and also absorb the SAS Accountants in its newly constituted service. That the State Government will have the benefit of more experienced officers of SAS cadre is for the State to consider. Merely on that ground plea of discrimination cannot be advanced.
Relying on the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, he further contended that not only Article 14 but Article 16 has been held to form basic structure of the constitution and hence in the matters of public employment, no one can be made beneficial of pick and choose theory and the public employment has to be made following the due process of selection providing effective opportunity to the thousands of unemployed youths who are waiting for engagement in accordance with the due process of selection. It is not open for the petitioners to be regularised depriving those thousands of unemployed youths who are waiting to get their bread and butter by way of an employment, under due process of selection. Mr. Mohendro, relying on the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors. (supra) has contended that there cannot be regularization of service of ad hoc employees who were appointed de hors the Rules like the writ petitioners, as the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment observed that appointment de hors the due process of selection as envisaged by the constitutional scheme confers no right on the appointee and the said appointee cannot ask for regularization when their appointments itself were illegal and/or otherwise wrong. In support of his contention, he also relied upon the decision in Surinder Prasad Tiwari v. U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad , wherein the Apex Court dealt with the subject relating to regularization of ad hoc employees.
7. In response to the submission of learned Counsel for the appellants, learned Counsel for the writ petitioners/respondents herein, Ms. Puspa, submits that after utilisation of the service of petitioners for a long period of 12 to 19 years, the appellants have no power to raise the question regarding the manner of appointment of the writ petitioners. She also submits that if the appointments were wrong and de hors the Rules, then also it was done by the appointing authority for which the writ petitioners cannot be blamed, and for the wrong committed by the authority, petitioners should not suffer. She also contended that though the school managing authority and the Director General of Police were keen in making best efforts for accommodation and regularization of the service of the writ petitioners in the year 1995, considering the series of approach and representations of the staff of the said school, the State government did not acceded to that, which is unwarranted by law, as the State being the model employer, the writ petitioners cannot be deprived of their right, which they acquired by way of rendering their services in the said school for a long period of time, on the ground of non availability of sanctioned posts more so when the management of the school allowed the writ petitioners to discharge their duties, as Assistant Teachers and Matron respectively, even after their resignation from the services in the year, 1985. She further contended that it is the duty of the State Government to uphold the directive principles of State Policy, as enshrined in the constitution, particularly, to make effective provision for securing the right to education of children of MR Personnel by regularizing the service of the petitioners, which they failed. The respondents/appellants ought to have regularised the service of the petitioners and provide them the salary and allowances at par with the teachers of other government schools at Manipur as they are discharging the same public duty, i.e., providing education to the children. She also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Jacob M. Puthuparambil and Ors. v. Kerala Water Authority and Ors. for the proposition that even if the statutory rules do not operate in the field, direction for regularization is permissible under the law by the court. Hence the learned Single Judge did not commit any error by way of giving direction to the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioners in the posts of constable Assistant Teachers and Constable Matron. Learned Counsel for the respondents (writ petitioners) has further contended that the instant case is also covered by the decision of the apex court in the case of All Manipur Regular Posts Vacancies Substitute Teachers' Association v. State of Manipur wherein the Apex Court directed the State government to consider the case for regularization of ad hoc appointees like the petitioners before making direct recruitment to the post in question and also directed to appoint direct recruits if there is any additional vacancies. Relying the aforesaid decisions she submits that the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity, hence, the State appeal is required to be dismissed.
8. In Piara Singh (supra) it is held by the Apex Court that "the creation and abolition of a post is the prerogative of the Executive. It is the Executive again that lays down the conditions of service subject, of course, to a law made by the appropriate legislature. This power to prescribe the conditions of service can be exercised either by making Rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or (in the absence of such Rules) by issuing Rules/instructions in exercise of its executive power. The court comes into the picture only to ensure observance of fundamental rights, statutory provisions, Rules and other instructions, if any, governing the conditions of service. The main concern of the court in such matters is to ensure the rule of law and to see that the executive acts fairly and gives a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16."
9. In the case of AT. Ramanatha Pillai v. The State of Kerala and Anr. also, the Apex Court held that "the power to create or abolish a post is not related to the doctrine of pleasure. It is a matter of governmental policy. Every sovereign Government has this power in the interest and necessity of internal administration. The creation or abolition of post is dictated by policy decision, exigencies of circumstances and administrative necessity. The creation, the continuance and the abolition of post are all decided by the Government in the interest of administration and general public".
Following the aforesaid decisions in N. Ramanatha Pillai (supra) the Apex Court again reiterated the same views in the case of State of Haryana v. Shri Des Raj Sangar and Anr. stating that "Whether a post should be retained or abolished is essentially a matter for the Government to decide. As long as such decision of the Government is taken in good faith, the same cannot be set aside by the court. It is not open to the court to go behind the wisdom of the decision and substitute its own opinion for that of the Government on the point as to whether a post should or should not be abolished. The decision to abolish the post should, however, as already mentioned, be taken in good faith and be not used as a cloak or pretence to terminate the service of a person holding that post. In case it is found, on consideration of the facts of a case that the abolition of the post was only a device to terminate the services of an employee, the abolition of the post would be liable to be set aside.
10. On going through the aforesaid decisions, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge erred in law in directing the respondents to regularise the service of the writ petitioners when there was no sanctioned post, in the alternative to regularise the service of the writ petitioners by creating posts, which is not within the domain of the court, rather exclusively within the power of the sovereign government, as the same is a policy matter. The duty of the court is only to see whether the action of the Executive and/or statutory authority and/or other authority are within the compass of law or not. If there is no violation of fundamental right of an employee, and no arbitrariness in action or when the post is not created for helping any one of its employee then the court cannot interfere with the policy decision of the authority as asked for but if the posts are not created with a mala fide intention then such direction for creation of posts may be called for. In the instant case the petitioners have failed to make out any such case as required under the law.
11. In Tech Executive (supra) the apex court expressed the same views and held that "it would be for the appropriate Government to take policy decision. The Tribunal is not competent to give directions to lay down the policy or to issue directions to create promotional avenues. Such a direction would amount to entrenching upon area of policymaking, which is exclusively within the purview of the appropriate Government". The Apex Court in the case of State Fishery Officers' (supra) also held that no direction could be given to the Government to grant monetary benefits contrary to its policy because such matters fall within the realm of executive policy decision.
12. In the case of Uma Devi (supra) the Apex Court laid down the law regarding the rights of the employees appointed on temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad hoc basis, wherein the Apex Court observed that articles, 14, 16 and 309 of the Constitution aim to ensure that the public appointment should be given only in a fair and equal manner by providing opportunities, to those who are eligible and waiting for employment. When the rules framed under Article 309 is in force and/or government instructions/policies covers the field, no regularization of service is permissible in exercise of the executive power of the State government and even the court has also no power to give a direction to regularise the service of those employees who are appointed contrary to the provisions of the rules framed under Article 309 and/or government instructions and/or policy as the same would close the door of opportunity to the thousands of unemployed youths who are waiting for employment following due procedures as prescribed by law. The case of Uma Devi (supra) has also subsequently been considered and followed by the Apex Court in Surinder Prasad Tiwari (supra) wherein the Apex Court reiterated the principles laid down in the case of Uma Devi (supra) stating, inter alia, that equal opportunity is the basic feature of our constitution and public employment is repository of the State power. The observation of the Apex Court in para 43 of Uma Devi (supra) is quoted hereunder:
43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is th core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this court while laying down the law has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employee whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment do not acquire any right. The High Court acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order of the court, which we have described as 'litigious employment' in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such case, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of constitutional and statutory mandates.
13. The case of Uma Devi (supra) is again followed in the case of Principal, Mehar chand Polytechnic , wherein the Apex Court discussed the object behind the framing of recruitment rules and also held that the respondents of that case, who are the appointees purely on temporary basis did not have any legal right to be absorbed in service and in the said case also admittedly there was neither any sanctioned post prior to the appointments nor any advertisement was issued enabling the eligible candidates to file application therefor, nor vacancies were notified to the employment exchange. The relevant paragraphs of the case in Principal, Mehar chand (supra) are reproduced hereunder for better appreciation:
8. It is not the case of the respondents that prior to issuance of the said offer of appointment any vacancy existed or the same was notified to the employment exchange. It is furthermore not their case that they were recruited in terms of the statutory rules and/or upon compliance with the recruitments envisaged under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. It is also not their case that prior to their appointments any advertisement was issued enabling the eligible candidates to file applications therefor or the. vacancies were notified to the employment exchange.
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
21. The Constitution Bench of this court while answering some of the said questions in no uncertain terms held that any appointment made in violation of the statute or in derogation of the equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution would be void and of no effect. It was opined that such persons who had obtained such illegal appointments were not entitled to claim regularization.
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
35. The respondents did not have legal right to be absorbed in service. They were appointed purely on temporary basis. It has not been shown by them that prior to their appointments, the requirements of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution had been complied with. Admittedly, there did not exist any sanctioned post. The project undertaken by the Union of India although continued for some time was initially intended to be a time bound one. It was not meant for generating employment. It was meant for providing technical education to the agriculturists. In the absence of any legal right in the respondents, the High Court, thus in our considered view, could not have issued a writ of or in the nature of mandamus.
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
39. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained. In view of the fact that limited notice was issued in Civil Appeals Nos. 7051 and 7052 of 2002 arising out of SLPs(civil) Nos.11597 and 22493 of 2001, we set aside only that part of the judgment whereby and whereunder the appellants had been directed to create posts and regularise the services of the respondents therein. The impugned judgments of the High Court to the aforementioned extent are set aside.
14. The Apex Court in Principal, Mehar chand Polytechnic (supra) referring to the decision in Jacob's case (supra) has observed as follows:
25. Jacob was decided in a different fact situation. In that case the employees concerned were working in the erstwhile Public Health Engineering Department. Upon creation of the Kerala Water and Waste Water Authority constituted under Section 3(1) of Ordinance 14 of 1984 repealed and replaced by Act 14 of 1986, their services were transferred. The cases of regularisation of the employees appointed during different periods came up for consideration in the light of Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 and the resolution adopted by the authority in terms thereof.
26. The contention of the employees therein was that they having been appointed in terms of Rule 9(1) of the Rules and their names having been called for from the employment exchange, the services of those who possessed requisite qualifications, could not be terminated. Clause (iii) of Rule 9 provided for regularisation of service of any person appointed under Clause (i) of Sub-rule (a). A resolution had also been, passed by the authority recommending to the State regularisation of the service of the employees recruited in the erstwhile PHED and still working in the Kerala Water Authority.
27. It is in the aforementioned backdrop this court directed regularisation of those who possessed the requisite qualifications.
15. We have also noticed the decision of this court (Division Bench) in the case of State of Manipur and Ors. v. Hidangmayum Brajamani Sharma wherein one of us was party (U.B. Saha, J), in which case after considering the case of Uma Devi (supra), Surinder Prasad Tiwari (supra) and Principal, Meharchand Polytechnic (supra) and some other cases decided by the Apex Court, has held that the direction for regularisation of service of the writ petitioners of that case as given by the learned Single Judge, like the instant case, is not maintainable in law.
16. In the instant case, the writ petitioners were admittedly appointed/ engaged on ad hoc basis for a period of 6 (six) months or till the posts are filled up on regular basis, whichever is earlier, though there was no existing posts for which engagement/appointment orders were issued, providing no opportunity to other unemployed youths who were waiting for employment following the procedure prescribed under the constitutional scheme. It is also an admitted position that the said engagements were on contract basis without following the necessary procedures prescribed for selection. The said appointments/engagements of the petitioners are not merely irregular but wrong and illegal one, as the appointments as Rfn Assistant Teachers, Rifleman and Matron (non-teaching staff) to the non existing posts are wholly illegal, therefore, no direction could have been given by the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, either to appoint or to regularise the service of such persons like the petitioners.
17. Upon consideration of the aforementioned decisions of the Apex Court and the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties as well as the records available before this court, we are in complete agreement with the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Mohendra that the persons like the petitioners appointed, de hors the rules, without any sanctioned post, on ad hoc basis, have no right to be regularised when thousands of unemployed youths are waiting in the queue for getting job in accordance with the procedures prescribed, which itself is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution, which is a basic feature of our constitution, and also the court has no power to direct the respondents to regularise the service of such appointees' who were appointed illegally within a particular period as directed in the judgment and order impugned. The court, can in view of the fats and circumstances of this case, cannot direct the appellants to frame a particular policy for creating posts to regularise the service of such appointees like the petitioners, who were appointed on ad hoc basis for a specified time in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. According to us, the Jacob's case (supra) has no application in the present case in hand as the said case was decided by the Apex Court on the basis of different fact situation, when the employees involved in that case were appointed in terms of Rule 9(1) of the Rules and their names have been called for from the Employment Exchange. But the facts in the case in hand is totally different, as the writ petitioners were not engaged after following the procedures prescribed and also their names were not sponsored by the employment exchange as required. The decision of the Apex Court in "All Manipur Regular Posts Vacancies Substitute Teachers' Association (supra), in our considered view, has also no application in the case in hand, keeping in view the facts involved in that case. In the case in hand, it is not the case of any of the parties that any one similarly engaged/appointed persons, on ad hoc basis is regularised to the post of Rfn Assistant Teacher, Rifleman/ Matron ignoring the case of the petitioners, rather, the services of the petitioners were regularised in the post of Woman Constables after reorganization of Manipur Rifles, but the petitioners refused to work as a Women constable and consequent thereto, they resigned, meaning thereby the appellants tried to utilize the service of the petitioners as woman constables but they could not do so due to unwillingness of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have no right to blame the authorities for their non-regularization of service in the post of Rfn Assistant Teacher and Rfn Matron when there is no such sanctioned post. Moreover, service of an employee appointed/engaged on temporary and/or contract and/or ad hoc basis cannot be regularised when there was no post. In such a situation, the direction given by the learned Single Judge, in our considered view, is contrary to law.
18. In the result, for the reasons discussed above, this appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order dated 5.10.2001 passed in WP(C) No. 1388 of 2000 is, accordingly, set aside. However, it is made clear that the amount already paid to the petitioners/respondents as consolidated pay, shall not be recovered by taking advantage of this judgment.
With the above observation and direction, writ appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.