WP-5143-2014(DR. PUSHPA M. RAWTANI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

06-04-2015

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHPRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

1. WP No.17665/2012Dr. Nitya Ranjan Das................Petitioner V.State of M.P. and Others �...Respondents

2. WP No.18433/2012Dr. Smt. Suniti Sen....................Petitioner V. State of M.P. & Others ............Respondents

3. WP No. 19838/2012 Dr. Mrs. Harmeet Cheema .........Petitioner V. State of M.P. & Others ..........Respondents 4. WPNo.19891/2012 Dr. Rajni Dubey....................Petitioner V. State of M.P. & Others.........Respondents 5. WP No.21641/2012 Govind Narayan Pateria .............Petitioner V.

State of M.P. & Others ..............Respondents

6. WP No.21659/2012 Dr. Mrs. Sunita Gupta ............Petitioner V. State of M.P. & Others �...........Respondents

7. WP No.21745/2012 Devendra Singh Rajput................Petitioner V. State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

8. WP No.21747/2012 Sanat Kumar Jain....................Petitioner V. State of M.P. & Others .........Respondents 9. WP No.900/2013Dr. Kaushal Kuamr Mishra.......Petitioner V. State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

10. WP No.3116/2013 Dr. Pushpraj Singh......................PetitionerV.State of M.P. & Others...........Respondents

11. WP No.3143/2013 Dr. Prabhat Kumar Pandey...........Petitioner

V. State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

12. WP No. 3674/2013 Dr. Shail Shrivastava................Petitioner V. State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

13. WP No. 3752/2013 Dr. Mrs. Pushplata Chouksey.........Petitioner Vs. State of M.P. & Others...........Respondents

14. WP No. 5505/2013 Bhartesh Bharill................Petitioner V. State of M.P. & Others .......Respondents

15. WP No. 8575/2013 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Kuraria......Petitioner V. State of M.P. & Others ........Respondents16. WP No. 8922/2013 Dr. Kailash Tyagi................Petitioner V. State of M.P. & Others ......Respondents

17. WP No. 11006/2013 Dr. Dharamchand Jain................Petitioner

Vs. State of M.P. & Others

18. WP No. 11213/2013 Smt. Pratibha Jain................Petitioner Vs. State of M.P. & Others ......Respondents

19. WP No. 11793/2013 Dr. Smt. Kiran Singh ................Petitioner Vs. State of M.P. & Others .........Respondents

20. WP No. 14540/2013 Dr. Smt. Ganga Mishra................Petitioner V. State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents 21. WP No. 20262/2013 Dr. Scaria V. Joseph................Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ........Respondents

22. WP No. 22225/2013 Dr. Smt. Lalita Tripathi ............Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

23. WP No. 22376/2013 Dr. S.D. Singh ................Petitioner V. State of M.P. & Others

24. WP No. 22410/2013 Dr. Santosh Bhargava ................Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents 25. WP No. 1223/2014 Dr. Bahadur Singh Parmar ........Petitioner Vs. State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

26. WP No. 1643/2014 Dr. Smt. Smriti Shukla ................Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others �.........Respondents

27. WP No. 1796/2014 Dr. Smt. Urmila Kharpuse ...........Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ..............Respondents 28. WP No. 2084/2014 Dr. Lata Sharma ................Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ....Respondents

29. WP No. 2412/2014 Dr. Sushil Kumar Dubey ................Petitioner V. State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

30. WP No. 3578/2014 Dr. Vinod Kumar Rastogi ...........Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

31. WP No. 3580/2014 Dr. Arun Kumar Sikarwar ..........Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

32. WP No. 3582/2014Dr. Ram Krishna Shrivastava ......Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

33. WP No. 3587/2014Dr. S.C. Rai .........................Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ......Respondents

34. WP No. 3642/2014 Dr. Shrikant Dubey ................Petitioner V.

State of M.P. & Others .......Respondents

35. WP No. 3873/2014 Dr. Mrs Usha Shukla ................Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

36. WP No. 3878/2014 Dr. Benoy Kumar Sinha ................Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

37. WP No. 5009/2014 Dr. Smt. Shashi Kiran Naik .........PetitionerV.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

38. WP No. 5143/2014 Dr. Pushpa M. Rawtani .............Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

39. WP � 5183/2014Dr. (MRS.) Pratibha Kumar .........Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents 40. WP No. 5263/2014 Dr. Ajit Kumar Singh ................Petitioner

V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

41. WP No. 5294/2014 Dr. Rashmi Singh .....................Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

42. WP No. 5637/2014 Dr. Smt. Sumitra Verma ............Petitioner Vs.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents 43. WP No. 6527/2014 Dr. Santosh Gupta �..................Petitioner V. State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

44. WP No. 6535/2014 Dr. Praveen Chand Tamot ............Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ..............Respondents

45. WP No. 6551/2014 Dr. Kalpana Dave ......................Petitioner V. State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

46. WP No. 6552/2014

Dr. Rohit Trivedi ................PetitionerV.State of M.P. & Others...........Respondents 47. WP No. 6557/2014 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Singh ................Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ..............Respondents

48. WP No. 6559/2014 Dr. B.M.S. Bhadoria ................Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents 49. WP No. 6995/2014Dr. Anil Shivani �....................Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

50. WP No. 7322/2014 Dr. Amar Kumar Jain ................Petitioner V. State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

51. WP No. 7327/2014 Dr. (Ms.) Aarti Shrivastava ...........Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others �............Respondents

52. WP No. 7328/2014 Dr. Mahendra Singhai................Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others .........Respondents 53. WP No. 7738/2014 Dr. Mohan Lal Soni................PetitionerV.State of M.P. & Others .........Respondents

54. WP No. 8184/2014 Dr. Rajendra Pandey ................Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

55. WP No. 8353/2014 Dr. Naveen Kumar Gideon .........Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

56. WP No. 8356/2014 Dr. Umesh Sakalle ................Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others .......Respondents 57. WP No. 8358/2014 Dr. Smt. Vijeta Choubey .............Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

58. WP No. 8362/2014 Dr. Rachna Mishra ................Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others .......Respondents

59. WP No. 8364/2014 Dr. Navaratn Prakash Niranjan.....Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

60. WP No. 8365/2014 Dr. Keertikam Dubey ................PetitionerV. State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

61. WP No. 8529/2014 Dr. Anil Kumar Dalela ................Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents 62. WP No. 10367/2014 Smt.Geeta Modi ................Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

63. WP No. 10574/2014 Dr. D.C. Upadhyay ................PetitionerV.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

64. WP No. 10579/2014 Dr. S.L. Soni ................PetitionerV.State of M.P. & Others .....Respondents

65. WP No. 10586/2014 Dr. Mrs. Roma Mukherjee ................Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents 66. WP No. 10752/2014 Dr. Vijay Kumar Tripathi ................PetitionerV.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

67. WP No. 10816/2014 Dr. Amit Shukla ................PetitionerV.State of M.P. & Others .....Respondents

68. WP No. 11204/2014 Dr. Mrs. Seeme Mahmood ...........Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

69. WP No. 11206/2014 Dr. Mrs. Anita Deshpande ..........PetitionerV.

State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

70. WP No. 11210/2014 Dr. M Rs. Deepa S. Kumar ............PetitionerV.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

71. WP No. 11212/2014 Dr. Sudhir Ranjan Singh ............PetitionerV.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

72. WP No. 11213/2014 Dr. R.S. Chandel ................PetitionerV.State of M.P. & Others �.....Respondents

73. WP No. 11420/2014 Dr. Makhan Singh Chouhan........Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

74. WP No. 11422/2014 Dr. Uday Dolas....................PetitionerV.State of M.P. & Others .....Respondents

75. WP No. 11425/2014 Dr. Muneshwar Singh ................Petitioner

V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents 76. WP No. 11950/2014Ajay Prakash Khare ................Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents 77. WP No. 12101/2014 Dr. Naval Singh ........................Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents 78. WP No. 12104/2014 Dr. Sunita Tripathi ...................PetitionerV.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

79. WP No. 12967/2014 Dr. Mrs. Manjulata Pathak ..........PetitionerV.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

80. WP No. 13014/2014 Dr. Hari Krishna Garg ................PetitionerV.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

81. WP No. 14926/2014

Dr. Rashmi Dubey ................PetitionerV.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

82. WP No. 15182/2014 Dr. Indu Pandey .......................Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

83. WP No. 15703/2014 Dr. Neena Shrivastava ................Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

84. WP No. 15707/2014 Dr. (Smt.) Vijay Saxena .............PetitionerV.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

85. WP No. 15708/2014Dr. (Smt.) Rita Sachdev �...........Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

86. WP No. 15712/2014 Dr. (Smt.) Antima Tiwari .........Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

87. WP No. 15713/2014 Dr. Govind Prasad Ahirwar..........Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

88. WP No. 17472/2014 Dr. Jyoti Martin.......................Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others .........Respondents

89. WP No. 468/2015 Dr. Chandramouli Shukla ..........PetitionerV.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

90. WP No. 472/2015 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena...........Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

91. WP No. 473/2015 Dr. Mrs Archana Sharma ...........Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

92. WP No. 2478/2015 Dr. Sandhya Choubey ...............Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

93. WP No. 2479/2015 Dr. Seema Bhargava................PetitionerV.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

94. WP No. 2480/2015 Dr. Sunita Mishra....................Petitioner V.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

95. WP No. 2775/2015 Dr. Sandhya Pachori................PetitionerV.State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents

96. WP No. 469/2015 Dr. Rekha Shukla Pandey...............PetitionerV. State of M.P. and Others..................Respondents

97. WP No. 469/2015 Dr. Mrs. Mukta Mishra ...............PetitionerV. State of M.P. and Others..................Respondents

98. WP � 1735/2015 Prof. Dr. Sheela Shrivastava .............PetitionerV. State of M.P. and Others..................Respondents

99. WP No. 1750/2015 Dr. (Smt.) Varsha Sagorkar ..............PetitionerV. State of M.P. and Others..................Respondents

100. WP No. 2780/2015 Dr. Radha Agrawal .......................PetitionerV. State of M.P. and Others..................Respondents=================For the Petitioners: Mr. A.K. Pathak, Mr. Praveen Verma, Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, Mr. V.K. Shukla, Mr. Vikram Singh, Ms. C.V. Rao, Mr.Sidharth Seth,Mr.Pratyush Tripathi and Mr. B.C. Dubey,Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Naman Nagrath, Senior Advocate and Mr. Girish Kekre and Mr. Lalit Joglekar, Government Advocates==========================

O R D E R(6 .4.2015)

In this bunch of the writ petitions, the petitioners havechallenged the validity of the impugned orders by which therespondents have modified the date of entitlement of thepetitioners for grant of Senior Grade/ Selection Grade/ GradePay. For the facility of reference, the facts from Writ Petition

No.17665/2012 are being referred to.

2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Professorin Commerce on ad hoc basis vide order dated 1.12.1984.Thereafter his services were regularized by an order dated4.3.1987. The University Grants Commission (in short �theCommission�) issued an order dated 27.7.1998 whichdeals with the revision of pay scales of teachers in theuniversity and colleges in the light of revision of pay-scalesof the Central Government Employees in view of therecommendations of 5th Pay Commission. The criteria forgrant of selection grade pay-scale was provided in the saidorder i.e. �minimum length of service for grade of lecturer(Senior Scale)� is four years in case the candidates havingP.Hd. degree, five years in case the candidates having M.Phil.degree and six years in case the candidates holding the postof Lecturer (Selection Grade).

3. Thereafter the Commission issued another notificationdated 24.12.1998 with regard to revision of pay-scale andminimum qualification for appointment of teachers in theuniversity. The Higher Education Department of State ofMadhya Pradesh vide an order dated 11.10.1999implemented the provisions of the notification dated24.12.1998 issued by the Commission. Paragraph 8 A of theaforesaid order provides for relaxation of five year workingexperience for senior selection grade pay scale for the casesstated therein as the same would amount to anomaly andtheir eligibility would be determined on the basis of total

length of service. Paragraph 8 A reads as under:

�ofj"B Js.kh osrueku esa LFkkuu gsrq 6 o"kZ ds U;wurelsokdky dh vgZrk gksxhA ih-,p-Mh- rFkk ,e-fQy mikf/k/kkjdksa ds fy, ;g lsokdky dze'k% 4 ,oa 5 o"kZ gksxkA izojJs.kh osrueku esa LFkkuu gsrq ofj"B Js.kh osrueku esa leku :ils 5 o"kZ dk lsokdky vfuok;Z gksxkA fo|eku ;kstuk o"kZ 1986ls ykxw esa LFkkuu gsrq iqujhf{kr ;kstuk ^o"kZ 1996 lsykxw^ dh rqyuk esa vf/kd lsok o"kksZ dh vko';drk gksrh FkhAvr% mu f'k{kdks ds ekeys esa ftudk LFkkuu 1986 dh ;kstuk dsvk/kkj ij gks pqdk gSA iqujhf{kr ;kstuk ds izoj Js.kh osruekuesa LFkkuu gsrq folaxfr mRiUu djsxsaA ,sls izdj.kksa esa ofj"BJs.kh osrueku esa 5 o"kZ dh lsok dh vfuok;Zrk gsrq folaxfrmRiUu djsaxsA ,sls izdj.kksa esa ofj"B Js.kh osrueku esa 5o"kZ dh lsok dh vfuok;Zrk ls NwV jgsxhA mudk LFkkuu dqylsok o"kksZ dh x.kuk ds vk/kkj ij gksxk vFkkZr ih-,p-Mh- /kkjd9 o"kksZ dh lsok ,oa ,e-fQy /kkjd 10 o"kksZ dh lsokdky gksus ijizoj Js.kh osrueku ds fy, ik= gksxsaA�

4. The petitioner was given the senior pay-scale videorder dated 21.4.1999 with effect from 4.3.1995. Thereafterby an order dated 2.7.2002 the benefit of selection grade pay-scale was accorded to the petitioner with effect from 2.7.2002. By an order passed in the month of January, 2012the petitioner was held entitled to the benefit of SelectionGrade Pay-Scale with effect from 27.7.1998. However, bythe impugned order dated 4.8.2012 the entitlement of thepetitioner to the benefit of Selection Grade Pay Scale hasbeen modified from 27.7.1998 to 4.3.2000 on the ground that

the mistake crept in the order passed by the HigherEducation Department of Government of M.P. with regard tothe relaxation granted in respect of five years experience insenior pay-scale has been rectified. Accordingly, by identicalorders in all the writ petitions, the date of entitlement of thepetitioners for grant of selection/senior grade pay-scale hasbeen modified unilaterally. In the aforesaid factual backdrop,the petitioners have approached this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that theimpugned order is arbitrary and is violative of Articles 14 and16 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted thatthe respondents have not taken into account the order dated11.10.1999 passed by them which has neither been dilutednor rescinded. It is also submitted that the order dated29.1.2008 providing for clarification in the order dated11.10.1999 is prospective in nature. It is also submitted thatthe Commission while framing directions has relaxed theembargo by inserting clause 7.8 in the Scheme and theimpugned order has been passed in flagrant violation ofprinciples of natural justice inasmuch as neither any noticenor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner.

6. Mr. Naman Nagrath, learned senior counsel submittedthat in the facts and circumstances of the case thecompliance with the principles of natural justice wouldamount to exercise in futility as the petitioners have nothingto say before the authority. In support of his submission,learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the decision in

the case of Vivek Nand Sethi v. Chairman, J & K Bank Ltd.and Others, (2005) 5 SCC 337. It is further submitted thatobject of compliance with principles of natural justice has twofacets, namely, to enable the employee to know the nature ofallegations made against him; and to afford an opportunity ofhearing to him. In the instant case, the bona fide mistake issought to be rectified. It is further submitted that in any casethe employees can be given post-decisional hearing. It isfurther submitted that since the amount is paid in excess, thepetitioners, therefore, are not entitled to retain the same. Insupport of the aforesaid submission, learned senior counselhas placed reliance on the decision in the case of Shiv SagarTiwari v. Union of India and Others, (1997) 1 SCC 444 andChandi Prasad Uniyal and Others v. State of Uttarakhhand and Others, (2012) 8 SCC 417.

7. I have considered the respective submissions made bylearned counsel for the parties. In Chandi Prasad Uniyal(supra) the Supreme Court after taking into considerationvarious decisions rendered by it held that the even if bymistake of the employer, the amount is paid to the employeeand on a later date if the employer after proper determinationof the same discovers the excess payment has been made bymistake or negligence, the excess amount so made could berecovered. The decision in Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) was referred to a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court inview of the conflict expressed in the decisions rendered in thecases of Shyam Babu Verma and Others v. Union of India andOthers, (1994) 2 SCC 521 and Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana

and Others, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18. The three-Judge Bench ofthe Supreme Court in the case of State of Panjab and Othersv. Rafiq Masih, (2014) 8 SCC 883, held that the law laid downin Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) in no way is in conflict withthe observations made by the Supreme Court in Shyam BabuVerma (supra) and Sahib Ram (supra) and it was held that anemployee cannot retain the amount received by him onaccount of irregular/wrong fixation of pay even in the absenceof any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. Thus, therecannot be any dispute that the amount so paid to theemployee can be recovered by the employer.

8. However, the moot question which arises forconsideration in the case at hand is whether excess amountthat has been paid to the employee even in the absence offraud or misrepresentation on the part of such employee canbe recovered without compliance with the principles ofnatural justice. The principles of natural justice areregarded as important procedural safeguard against undueexercise of power by an authority. The chances of anadministrative authority taking decision in ignorance of otherfactors are reduced as if the hearing is given to the personconcerned who will bring all the issues involved in thesituation. In such a case the decision making authority shalltake into account all the relevant facts and issues involved inthe decision and would come to a right decision. Thus, theprinciples of natural justice is considered as an effectivemethod to protect the interest of individual as he canparticipate in administrative process affecting him.

9. In the case of Nand Kishore Sharma and Others v.State of Bihar and Others, 1995 Suppl. (3) SCC 722 theSupreme Court held that having paid the arrears to theemployees, the State Government could not have recoveredthe same without compliance with the Rules of NaturalJustice. In the case of State of Karnataka and Another v.Mangalore University Non-teaching Employees�Association and Others, (2002) 3 SCC 302 it was held by theSupreme Court that in all cases of violation of principles ofnatural justice, the Court exercising jurisdiction underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India need not necessarilyinterfere and set at naught the action taken by an authority.The Court has to consider the genesis of the actioncontemplated, the reasons thereof and the reasonablepossibility of prejudice while considering the effect ofviolation of the principles of natural justice.

10. In the cases at hand, the petitioner was granted thebenefit of senior pay-scale with effect from 4.3.1995 by anorder dated 21.4.1999. Thereafter vide an order dated2.7.2002 the benefit of selection grade was extended to him.Thereafter in January, 2012, the petitioner was held entitledto the benefit of selection grade with effect from 27.7.1998.It is pertinent to mention here that the notification dated24.12.1998 issued by the Commission was adopted by theState Government vide order dated 11.10.1999 whichcontained clause 8A which deals with exemption with regardto requirement of minimum period of service. Thereafter theState Government issued an order dated 29.1.2008 by which

the clause 8 contained in the order dated 11.10.1999 wasclarified and it was provided that there shall be no exemptionwith regard to minimum service of five years in senior payscale. Thereafter by an order passed in the month of January,2012, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of SeniorGrade with effect from 27.7.1998.

11. By the impugned order the entitlement of thepetitioner for grant of selection grade pay-scale has beenmodified from 27.7.1998 to 4.3.2000, admittedly, withoutcompliance of principles of natural justice. The aforesaidorder has been modified unilaterally with regard to date ofentitlement of the petitioners which would result in adverseconsequences i.e. recovery of the amount from the petitioner. Thus, the benefit which was accorded to the petitioners issought to be taken away without following the principles ofnatural justice. It is possible for the petitioners to contendthat the order dated 29.1.2008 is prospective in nature anddoes not apply to the case of the petitioner as the benefit hasalready been granted to him and the said order does notprovide for reopening of the cases where the benefit of Senior Grade/ Selection Grade/ Grade Pay has already beenextended. In other words, the petitioners have not admittedthat any excess amount is paid to them. The petitioners asserttheir entitlement to the amount in question.

12. The genesis of action contemplated against thepetitioner i.e. issuance of the impugned order by which thedate of entitlement of the petitioner has been unilaterally

modified appears to be 29.1.2008. The said order was issuedto clarify clause 8A contained in the order dated 11.10.1999.Undoubtedly the prejudice would be caused to the petitionersif the amount is recovered from them without affording anopportunity of hearing to them. The petitioners may haveplausible defence to put forth before the authority. However,the same is required to be considered and dealt with by thecompetent authority.

13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the action ofthe respondents in passing the impugned orders are inbreach of principles of natural justice therefore, the samecannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the sameare quashed. However, the respondents would be at libertyto issue notice to the petitioners indicating the grounds onwhich the date of entitlement for grant of Selection Grade/Selection Grade/ Grade Pay are sought to be modified and topass a fresh order containing reasons in accordance with lawafter affording an opportunity of submitting reply to thepetitioners. It is made clear that this Court has not expressedany opinion on the merits of the claim made by the petitionersand the competent authority would be at liberty to examinethe case of the individual petitioner on its own merit.

14. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions aredisposed of.

(ALOK ARADHE)JUDGE