- (1.) I. P. Vasishth, J. The Court is ceased of the distinct though similar petitions bearing Writ Petition No. 7202 (SS) of 1993. 521 (SS) of 1994 and 526 (SS) of 1994 contain ing a common grouse of the petitioners with regard to release of certain service benefits in the domain of optional pay, special work allowance, fixed house rent, motor cycle subsidy etc.
(2.) THE gist of the matter is that the petitioners are employees of the ministerial staff of the State Police and working in various wi,igs of the district establishment Range Head quarters and Police Head quarters. It was contended that the police employees working in the Executive Cadre of the force were drawing certain benefits of the type enumerated above, but for some unjustifiable reasons the respondents were depriving them thereof. THE action was thus stated to be discriminatory and appropriate relief for the release of the aforesaid al lowances was claimed by way of mandamus in all these three petitions. Resisting the petitioners endeavour for the extra benefits, the respondents pleaded that there was a clear distinction in the nature of duties and responsibilities fas tened upon the ministerial staff and the force working in the field popularly called on executive duty. During the course of hearing, the attention of the Court was drawn towards its earlier judgment rendered on 23-9-1991 in Writ Petition No. 6700 of 1986/4. K. Misra and others v. State of U. P. commanding upon the respondents to treat the minist rial staff of the police force at par with its executive staff in the context of all such benefits like special work allowance, special pay, fixed house rent allowance, motor subsidy and one month's extra pay. This judgment was allowed to become final by the State. The tone and tends of the judgment leaves no manner of doubt that its scope was not limited to the particular petitioners alone rather it was a sort of judgment-in-rem.
(3.) BE that as it may, a similar view was taken by this Court both at its Lucknow BEnch as well as at Allahabad in the matter of D. D. Singh and others v. State W. P. No. 7323 of 1992 dated 28-8-93, Rajendra Prasad and others v. State W. P. No. nil of 1994 dated W-l- 1994,kedarnath Srivastava andothers v. State W. P. No. 42473 of 1993 dated 14-12-1993 ; H. N. Srivastava and others v. State W. P. No. 39648 of 1993 dated 14-12-93. and Tej Bahadure Singh and others v. Stale of U. P. W. P. No nil of 1993 dated 15-10-1993. Out of these decisions the matter of Tej Bahadur Singh was agitated by the State before the Hon'bie Supreme Court by way of S. L. P. No. 21210 of 1994 which though'dismissed at I one stage for want of prosecution, was ul- j timately dismissed on merit on 23-8-1996 as would be evident from Annexure 8 attached with Writ Petition No. 7202 of 1993. From the aforesaid judgment, it ap pears that the issue has already been settled at the appropriate judicial forum and the State could not possibly walk out of it. To crown it all in 1994 the State itself issued G. O. No. 905/chha-Pu-1-94-500/431/93 dated 8-4-1994 (Annexure 2 per Writ Peti tion No. 526 (SS) of 1994) releasing these benefits to the petitioners of the aforesaid cases. Actually this G. O. appears to be based on the judicial pronouncements rendered in the aforesaid cases and as men tioned hereinbefore those judgments are not judgments in person. They rather ap pear to be the judgments-in- rem because primarily they decided a legal issue relating to the State and its employees in the police force as a whole.;