R.R.K.TRIVEDI, J. - (1.) This special appeal from the order dated 29/01/1993, passed by learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2743 of 1993, has been preferred by petitioners of the writ petition questioning the legality of the order by which decision of the Taxing Officer requiring petitioners to pay deficient Court-fee has been maintained.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellants were employed under the Meerut Mandal Vikas Nigam, hereinafter referred to as 'Nigam'. The orders were served separately on all petitioners for retrenchment of their services. The reason for the retrenchment stated in the order was resolution No. 2 dated 4/09/1992 of the Board of Directors of the Nigam directing to close the activities of Nigam and to retrench employees, as their services are not required and the services of the petitioners shall come to an end on expiry of one month i.e. on 30/11/1992. There is no dispute about the fact that the appointment letters were separately issued to each of the petitioners and their services have also been terminated by separate orders. Petitioners joined in this writ petition and have challenged the orders of termination passed against them which have been filed as Annexures 2 to 16 to the writ petition. Stamp Reporter by his report dated 18/01/1993 found deficiency in payment of Court-fee to the extent of Rs. 1785.00. Against the report of the Stamp Reporter, petitioners filed an objection before the Taxing Officer. The Taxing Officer by his order dated 19/01/1993 rejected the objection. The order is being reproduced below :-"The petitioners have filed objection against the deficiency report of Rs. 1785.00.The petitioners have challenged the order of their respective termination (Annexures 2 to 16).Separate order in respect of the each petitioner who has been terminated from their service.Thus the cause of action to the each petitioner arises from separate orders and not from common orders.In view of this, the right to relief does not arise from single and common order, rather it arises from separate orders.In these circumstances, each petitioner has to pay the separate Court-fee.In view of the above, Court-fee paid is insufficient and Stamp Reporter's report is upheld. Let the deficiency be made good.Taxing Officer19-1-93".
(3.) It appears that the question regarding the deficiency of the Court-fee was also raised by petitioners before the learned single Judge who by the impugned order upheld the order of the Taxing Officer aggrieved by which, this special appeal has been filed.;