Holding

The territorial restriction is unconstitutional under Article 14, and Tamil Nadu is liable to pay the family pension to the widows under the 1979 notification.

Summary

The widows of former Madras State government servants who retired before the 1956 reorganisation sought family pension under the Tamil Nadu Notification of 26 May 1979. The Tamil Nadu Government later issued a clarification (G.O. MS/63, 18 March 1982) that denied pension where the servant’s last posting was in a territory that did not become part of Tamil Nadu, prompting the widows to file writ petitions. The Court examined whether this territorial restriction violated the equality guarantee of Article 14 and whether Section 86 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, bound Tamil Nadu to honour the pension liability. It held that Section 86 only covers liabilities existing before the appointed date and does not apply to a pension created by Tamil Nadu after 1979, and that the restriction had no rational nexus to the purpose of the pension scheme, rendering it discriminatory. Consequently, Tamil Nadu was ordered to pay the family pension of Rs 100 per month to the petitioners, with arrears from 1 April 1979, and Kerala was barred from claiming any reimbursement.

Issues considered

Whether the restriction in G.O. MS/63 (Finance) 18 March 1982 limiting family pension to widows of servants whose last posting fell within Tamil Nadu violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether Section 86 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, applies to a pension liability created by Tamil Nadu after the reorganisation.
Which successor State, Tamil Nadu or Kerala, is liable to pay family pension to widows of former Madras State employees who retired before the reorganisation.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14
States Reorganisation Act, 1956s. 86

Subjects

family pensionArticle 14discriminationStates Reorganisation Actsuccessor state liabilitywidow's rightsTamil NaduKerala

Judgment

t
A
SMT. J. S. RUKMANI ETC.
v.
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

October 17, 1984
B
[P. N. BHAGWATI, AMARENDRA NA1H SEN AND RANGANATH
MISRA, JJ.]

c
Constitution of India 1950, Article 14 1
Family Pension-Grant of-State governme1tf order confinz'ng benefit
to fa111ily of only tho.•e gorern1ne11t sen•ants who /a"t se1ved at a place falling
within the present State of Tamil Nadu-U'hether unconstitutional and void.

State~ Reorganisation Act 1956 Section 86-'Lfability of an existing
State' in respect of pension-IYhat is-Liability to be under an exi~·ting
D provision of law.

Tamil Nadu New Fanu'ly Pension Rules 1964, Notification dated May
26, 1979 andGovern1nent Order MS/63 Finance dated March 18, 1982.

Fa111ily Pension- Benefit of Goverrunent serva1,f last served at a place
E which becan1e part of Kera/a State on reorganisation of Stole of Madras-
Widow whether entitled to fa111ily pension.

Word and Phrases 'the liability of the existing Srate'-Meoni11g of
.-
-Section 86 States Reorganisation Act, 1956.

F The State of Tamil Nadu introduced New Family Pension Rules,
1964 granting benefit of pension to the family of a government servant on
his death, but this benefit was confined only to the members of the family
of those government servants who retired prior to 1st April, 1964. Later
by a Notification dated 26th May, 1979 the benefit of family pension
was extended to the members of the family of government servants who
retired prior to 1st April 1 1964. However, by G. Q. MS/63 (Finance)
G dated 18th March, 1982, the Government clarified that if the place of
retirement of an employee or the place where he was last serving at the
time of death while in service, did not form part of lhe present State of
Tamil Nadu, the widow of such employee would not be entitled to the
benefit of family pension under the Notification dated 26th May, 1979.

H The petitioner in her letter addressed to this Court, complained that
though she was the widow of an employee of the former State of Madras,
j, S. RUicMAN! v. TAMIL NADU 993
who retired before the re-organisation of the State under the States Re- A
organisation Act 1956, she was not being given tbe benefit of fnrr,ily
pension under the Notification dated 26th M'1y, 1979. She further alleged
that she made an application to the former State of Madras for grant
of family pension at the rate of Rs. 100 per month under Paragraph 7 of
the Notification dated 26th Mny, 1979, and the State Government sanc-
tioned payment of familv pension of Rs. 100 by letter dated 2'.~nd
November, 1981 with effect from 1st April, 1979. This amount wa(j paid n
for about 6 months, but by another letter dated 20th April, 1982 she was
informed that ~be was not entitled to the grant of family pension under
G.O. MS/63 (Finance) dated 18th March, 1982 as her husband had served
in Cannanore at the time of his retirement and that Caanauore did not
presently form part of the present State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioncr,s
\ letter was converted into a writ petition and notice was issued to botn the
State Governments of Tamil Nadu and Kerala. c
The State Government of Tamil Nadil contended that under section
86 of the State Re-organisation Act 1956, t-be liability of the existing
Slates in respect of pension passes tO' or is apportioned between the
successor State or States in accordance with the provisions of the Fifth
Schedule to the Act, and that the petitioner would be excluded from the
benefit of the family pension since the place where her husband served at D
the time of superanauation became part of States other than the State
of Tamil Nadu.

Allowing (he Writ Petitions

HELD : l. li) The State of Tamil Nadu is liable to pay to the
petitioners in these four writ pe:itioos as also to the widows of other E
government servants falling within Paragraph 7 of the Notification dated
26th MayJ 1979 family pension at the rate of Rs. 100 per month with
effect from !st April, 1979. [1002 B-C]

(ii) A Writ is issued directing the State of Tamil N"du to pay
arrears of family pension calculated at the rate of Rs. 100 per month F
from 1st April, 1979 after deducting the amount, if any, already paid by
the States of Tamil Nadu and Kerala to the petitioners in terms cf the
interim orders. The State of Kerala would not be entitled to claim refund
of any payment made nor reimbursement in respect of such payment from
the State of Tamil Nadu. [1002 C-D]

2. The object of granting family pension under the Notification G
dated 26th May, 1979 is obviously to alleviate the economic distress of
widows and other members of the fan1ily of Government servants who
retired after faithfully serving the State of Madras as also the f.Uccessor
State of Tamil Nadu and who subsequently died leaving widows and other
members of the family. [1001 D] "

3. The object of the Notification dated 26th May, 1979 does not
warrant any such distinction to be made bct111cen the widows of one class
of government servants and the widows of another class merely on the H
994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] 1 s.c.R.

A basis or the place where the government servant last served at the time
of superannuation, although in both cases lhe govcrnn1cnt servant served
the san1e State, namely, the former State of Madras and superannuated
before the reorganisation of the States. [1001 G·H]

4. The restrictive limitation imposed by the Government order
dated 18th March, 1982 confinning the benefit of family pension to the
B members of only those government servants who last served at a place
falling within the territories of 1he successor State of Tamil Nfldu is ·viola-
tive of Article 14 of the Constitution and hence unconstitutional and
void. [1001 H, 1002 A]

5. On a plain grammatical construction of Section 86 of the States
Reorganisation Act, 1956 the liability of an existing State in respect of
c pension which passes to or is apportionable between the successor State
or States i"n accordance with the provisions of the Fifth Schedule is a
liability in respect of pension under an existing law. The liability may be
in presenti or it may be a liability ...to arise in future but it must be a liabi·
Jity under an existing provision of law and it is that liability which is to pass
on or be apportionable between the successor State or States in nccor-
dance with the provisions contained in the Fifth Schedule. [999 C-JJ]
D
6. Section 86 :ould not possibly be intended to refer to a liability
which may subsequently be created by a provision of law which may be
enacted in future by any particular State. The words of the Section are
''the liability of the existing States". It must therefore be a liability of
an existing State and not a liability of a successor State which may come
E into being as a result of a future legislation passed by that State. [999 B-F]

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos. 6756, 6806,
8483, 4309 and 9179 of 1982.

(Under a rticle 32 of the Constitution of India)

F S. Rangarajan, K. R. Nagaraja, P. K. Rao and B. Krishna
Prasad for the petitioners.

Petitioner in person in Writ Petition No. 9179 of 1982,

G
K. G. Bhagat, Additional Solicitor General, A. v. Rangam and
Miss A. Subhashini for the respondents.

M. M. Abdul Khader and P. K. Pillai for the respondents in
Wri$ Petition No. 9179 of 1982.
-
("

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

BHAGWATI, J. These writ petitions raise a common question of
u law relating to the liability of the State of Tamil Nadu for payment
1. s. RUKMANI v. TAMIL NADU (Bhagwati, J.) 995

of family pension to widows of employees who were in the service A
of the former State of Madras and who retired from service before
reorganisation of States under the States Reorganisation Act, 195C,.
The facts giving rise to these writ petitions are almost identical and
it ~ill therefore be enough if we state the facts of only one writ peti-
tion, namely, Writ Petition No. 4309 of 1982.
D
This writ petition came to be initiated as a result of a letter
, addressed to this Court by the petitioner complaining that though she
was the widow of an employee of the former State of Madras, who
retired before the re-organisation of the States under the States Re·
organisation Act 1956, she was not being given the benefit of family
pension which was granted by the State of Tamil Nadu under a c
Notification dated 26th May, 1979. The letter of the petitioner was
treated as a writ petition and notice was ismed to the State of Tamil-
Nadu and since it appeared that the State of Tamil Nadu was dispu-
ting its liability to pay family pension to the petitioner on the ground
that the deceased husband of the petitioner was serving in Cannan ore D -
at the time of his retirement and that Cannanore having become
part of the State of Kerala as a result of the provisions of the States
Reorganisation Act 1956 it was the State of Kerala which was liable
to pay family pension, if at all, to the petitioner, the Court also joi-
ned the State of Kerala es a respondent to the writ petition and issued
notice to the State of Kera\ a. It was common ground between the
parties that the husband of the petitioner was in the employment of E
the former State of Madras and was serving as Deputy Inspector of
Schools until 19th August, 1954 when he retired from service on
supperannuation. The place where he served last as Deputy Inspec·
tor of Schools was Cannaore and after his retirement, he settled down
in his ancestral house in village Kunniseri in Palghat District which
was originally part of the Former State of Madras but which on the F
reorganisation of the States came to belong to the State of Kerala.
The husband of the petitioner was, for the sake of convenience
drawing his pension from the nearest Sub-Treasury in Palghat until
his death which occurred in July, 1963 .

. It appears that the St~te of Tamil Nadu introduced New Family
Pension Rules 1964 grantmg benefit of pension to the family of a G
government servant on his death but this benefit was confined only
to the members of the family of those government servants who
retired from and after !st April, 1964. The question of extending
this be?efit t~ the members of the family of government servants
who rellred prior to !st April, 1964 was considered by the Third
H
996 SUPREMB cotiRt REPORTS [i 9851 1 s.c.a.
A Tamil Nadu Pay Commission and in it recommended "extension of
the family pension benefits to the families of the government servants
who retired prior to !st April, 1964". Pursuant to this recommenda-
tion made by the Third Tamil Nadu Pay Commission, the State of
Tamil Nadu issued the Notification dated 26th May, 1979 extending
the benefit of family pension to the members of the family of govern-
B ment servants who retired prior to 1st April, 1964. Paragraph 7 of
this Nollfication is material and we may therefore reproduce it in
extenso:

7. Employees not covered by the New Family Pension Rules,
I 964, fall under the following three categories :-
c
(i) those who are still in service,

(ii) those who have retired and are alive, and
(iii) those who have died.
-o (a) Considering the hardship to the families of employees not
covered by the New Family Pension Rules, 1964, the
Government direct that the family of an employe~ belong-
ing to any of these three categories and having completed
at least a year's service be sanctioned, on death of the
employee, family pension at a flat rate of Rs. 100 per
E month. Families of employees who have already died will
be sanctioned family pension at this flat rate of Rs. 100
per month with effect from the 1st April, 1979.

(b) A person in receipt of family pension under the old Rules
shall have the option to retain it, if it is found to be more
F advautageous that what would be available under (a)
above. ln this case, such family pension and the Dearness
Allowance thereon immediately before the coming into
force of these orders shall be taken t •. gether and the sum
total of these amounts shall henceforth constitute the
family pension.
G
The contention of the petitioner based on this paragraph of the
Notification dated 26th May, 1979 was that she was entitled to
family pension at the rate of Rs. 100 per month with effect from lst
April, 1979 since her husband was an employee of the former State
of Madras and h:id retired prior to lst April, 1964 and subsequently
died. The petitioner made an application to the Secretary to the
H Govt. of Tamil Nadu on 5th July, 1981 for grant of family pension
J. s. RUKMANI v. TAMIL NADU (Bhagwati, J.) 997

at the rate of Rs. 100 per month under Paragraph 7 of the Notifica- A
tion dated 26th May, 1979 and on this application, the Govt. of
Tamil Nadu intimated to the petitioner through a letter dated 22nd
November, 1981 addressed by the Joint Director of Schools Educa-
tion that the family pension of Rs. I 00 per month was sanctioned,
to the petitioner with effect from !st April, 1979. I he petitioner was
accordingly paid family pension at the rate of Rs. 100/· per month B
for a period of about 6 months. Surprisingly, on 20th April, 1982,

, the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Tamil Nadu addressed a letter
to the petitioner stating that because the petitioner's husband last
served in Connanore at the time of his retirement and Cannanore
does not now form part of the present State of Tamil Nadu, the
petitioner was not entitled to the grant of family pension under the c
clarification issued by the Govt of Tamil Nadu in its G.O. MS/63
(Finance) dated 18th March, 1982. This Notification sought to
clarify that if the place of retirement of an employee or the place
where he was last serving at the time of his death while in service,
did not form part of the present State of Tamil Nadu, the widow of
D
such employee would not be entitled to the benefit of family pension .
under tne Notificatian dated 26th May, 1979 and it was on the basis
of this clarification that the family pension which was being paid by
the State of Tamil Nadu to the petitioner was discontinued by the
letter dated 20th April, 1982. The petitioner being obviously a
woman without auy means, it was not possible for her to get relief E
bv filing a regular writ petition and she therefore sought to invoke
the jurisdiction of this Court by addressing a letter complaining of
discrimination against her and praying that family pension at the
rate of Rs. 100 per month should be directed to be paid to her by
the State of1amil Nadu under the Notifictaion dated 26th May,
1979. F
The State of Tamil Nadu as also the State of Kerala appeared
in answer to the notice issued by the Court and each tried to throw
the responsibility for payment of the family pension on the other,
without disputing that the amount of family pension was payable to
the petitioner but only raising the question as to who should be made
liable to pay the same. Since the hearing of this writ petition as also G
the other three writ petitions filed by widows similarly circumstanced
was likely to take sometime in reaching hearing, the Court made an
interim order directing each of the States of Tamil Nadu and Kerala
to pay a stim of Rs. 50 per month to the petitioner as also to the
widows who had moved the other three writ petitions in order to
enable tl\em to survive. On these facts, the question wliich falls for ff
998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985) I S.C.R

A consideration is as to which State is liable to pay the amount of
family pension to tht; petitioner, the Stat« of Tamil Nadu or the
Stat« of Kerala.

Now one position is clear namely that the petitioners cannot
claim any family pension under the Kerala Pension Rules since the
B Kerala Pension Rules admittedly on their terms apply only in cases
of government servants who retired from and after !st April, 1964
while the husband of the petitioner retired in August, 1954 and the
respective husbands of the petitioners in the other three writ peti·
tions also retired before 31st August, 1964. Moreover, the husband
of the petitioner was at no time an employee of the State of Ke1ala
c which comes into being on !st October, 1956 under the States Re·
organisation Act, 1956 since he retired from service long before that
date and obviously therefore the petitioner conld not claim any
family pension from the State of Kerala under the Kerala Family
Pension Rules. The same position obtained also in regard to the
respective husbands of the petitioners in the other three writ peti·
D
tions. The only question which therefore calls for consideration is as
to whether the petitioners in these four writ petitions are entitled to
claim family pension under the Notification dated 26th May, 1979
and if so, whether they are entitled to claim such family pension
from the State of Tamil Nadu or from the State of Kerala. The
E learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the
State of Tamil Nadu placed strong reliance on Section 86 of the
States Re-organisation Act, 1956 read with the Fifth Schedule of that
Act. Section 86 reads as follows :

Section 86 : Pensions :
F
The liability of th.e existing States in respect of pen-
sions shall pass to, or apportioned between, the
successor States in accordance with the provisions
contained in the Fifth Schedule.

The Fifth Schedule consists of 5 paragraphs but we a1e con-
G cerned only with paragraphs I and 3 which are in the following
terms :
"I. Subject to the adjustments mentioned in paragraph 3,
the successor State or each of the Successor States shall,
in respect of pensions granted before the appointed day
by an existing State, pay the pensions drawn in its
H treasuries.
J, s. RUKMANI v. TAMIL NADU (Bhogwati, J.) 999

3. In any case where there are two or more successor A
States, there shall be computed, in respect of the period
commencing on the appointed day and ending on the
31st day of March, 1957 and in respect of each subse-
quent financial year, the total payments made in all
the successor States in respect of the pensions referred
to in paragraplis l and 2. That total representing the B
liability of the existing State in respect of pensions
shall be apportioned between the successor States in
the population ratio and any successor State paying
more than its due share shall be reimbursed the excess
amount by the successor State or States paying less."
c
It is obvious on a plain grammatical construction of Section
86 that the liability of an existing State in respect of pension which
passes to or is apportionable between the successor State or States
in accordance with the provisions of the Fifth Schedule is a liability
in respect of pension under an existing law. The liability may be
D
in persenti or it may be a liability to arise in future, but it must be
a liability under an existing provision of law and it is that liability
which is to pass to or be apportionable between the successor State
or ·States in accordance with the provisions contained in the Fifth
Schedule. Section 86 could not possibly be intended to refer to a
liahility which may subsequently be created by a provision of law
which may be enacted in future by any particular State. The words E
of the Section arc "the liability of the existing States''. It must
therefore be a liability of an existing State and not a liability of a
successor State which may come into being as a result of a future
legislation passed by that State. If the construction canvassed on
behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu were ae<epted, it would
lead to startling result, namely, that a successor State by enacting
F
legislation creating a liability for pension would be able to pass on
that liability to the other successor State which could never have
been intended by the legislature. This view which we are taking is
reinforced by Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Fifth Schedule. Paragraph
I on its plain terms refers to "pensions granted before the appointed
date by an existing State". It applies only in respect of a pension G
which is granted before Ist October, 1956 being the appointed date
under the States Re-organisation Act, 1956 and it has no reference
whatsoever to any pension granted subsequent to that date. More-
over Paragraph 3 also makes it clear that it is only the liability of
an existing State in respect of pension which is required to be
apportioned between the successor States in the population ratio. ff
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] I s.c.R.

A It is therefore clear beyond doubt that Section 86 and Paragraphs
I and 3 of the Fifth Schedule do not cover a case where a liability for
pension is created by a successor State subsequent to the appointed
date, namely, 1st October, 1956. The reliance placed by the
learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the State of Tamil
Nadu on Section 86 read with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Fifth
B Schedule is therefore misconceived and the argument based upon
it must be rejected

Ir Section 86 read with Paragraphs I and 3 of the Fifth
Schedule has no applicability, the question before us resolves into
a very narrow one, namely, whether the liability for family pension
c created by the State of Tamil Nadu under the Notification dated
26th May, 1979 is limited only to cases of those government servants
who were last employed at a place which falls within the territorial
limits of the State of Tamil Nadu. The argument of the petitioners
was that their respective husband< were in the service of the former
D State of Madras and they retired as such government servants at a
time when the State of Madras was in existence and if the State
of Tamil Nadu which is th~ successor State to the State of Madras
has issued a Notification dated 26th May, 1979 granting the
benefit of family pension to the widows of government servants
who retired prior to Ist April, 1964, the petitioners must be held to
E be entitled to the benefit of such family pension, since they satisfied
all the conditions requisite for the applicability of grant of family
pension under the Notification dated 26th May, 1979. Now it was
not the contention of the State of Tamil Nadu that Government
servants who were in the employment of the State of Madras and
who retired before the State of Tamil Nadu came into being as a
result of the States Reorganisation Act 1956 were not entitled to
F the benefit of family pension under the Notification dated 26th
May 1979. The State of Tamil .'liadn conceded that the widows
of such Government servants were entitled to grant of family pension
under the Notification dated 26th M.ay 1979 provided such govern·
ment servants were at the date of superannuation serving at a place
which on the reorganisation of t:1e Slates fell within the territories
G forming part of the State of Tamil Nadu. Only ground on which
the State of Tamil Nadu sought to exclude the petitioners from
the benefit of the family pension was that their . respective
husbands served at the time of their superannution at places which
as a result of the States Re-organisation Act !956 were no more
in the State of Tamil Nadu but became parts of other successor
St11te 8. We do no thin!> any such limitation can be read in tbe
"
], s. RUKMANI v. TAMIL NADU (Bhagwati, J.) 1001

Notification dated 26th May, 1979. It is true that by reason of A
the subsequent Government Order dated 18th March, 1982 issued
by the State of Tamil Nadu clarifying the Notification dated 26th
May, 1979, the petitioners would be excluded from the benefit of
the family pension since the places where their respective hnsbands
were serving at the time of superannuation became part of States
other than the State of Tamil Nadu. But the learned counsel appear- 8
ing on behalf of the petitioners challenged the constitutional
validity of the Government Order dated 18th March, !982 and
contended that the place where a government servant was serving
at th·e time of superannuation has no rational nexus with the object
of granting family pension under the Notification dated 26th May,
1979 and that the Government Order dated 18th March 1982 is C
therefore discriminatory and void. This contention is, in our
opinion, well founded and must be accepted. The object of granting
I family pension under the Notification dated 20th May, 1979 is
obviously to alleviate the economic distress of widows and other
members of the family of Government servants who retired after
D
faithfully serving the State of Madras as also the successor State of
Tamil Nadu and who subsequently died leaving widows and other
members· of the family. Now admittedly the widow of a govern-
ment servant who was in employment of the former State of Madras
and who retirod before the reorganisation of the States would be
entitled to family pension under the Notification dated 26th May, E
1979 if the place where her husban·d was serving at the time of
superannuation was situate in the territories of the successor, State
of Tamil Nadu. If that be so, then it is difficult to see how the
widow of a government servant who served the former State of
Madras in the same manner and who retired before the reorganisa-
tion of the States should not be entitled to family pension under F
the Notilication dated 26th May, 1979 merely because place where
her husband was serving at the date of superannuation subsequently
came to form part of the territories of a State other than the State
of Tamil Nadu as a result of the reorganisation of the States. The
object of the Notification dated 26th May, 1979 does not warrant
any such distinction to be made between tho widows of one class
of government servants and the widows of another class merely on G
the basis of the place where the government servant last served at
the time of superannuation, although in both cases the Government
servant served the same State, namely, the former State of Madras
and superannuated before the reorganisation of the States. We are
therefore of the view that the restrictive limitation imposed by tho
Government Order dated 18th March, 1982 confining the benefit of
1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] I S.C.R.

A family pension to the members of the family of only those govern-
ment servants who last served at a place falling within the territories
of the successor State of Tamil Nadu must be held to be violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution and hence unconstitutional and
void.
B We must accordingly hold that the State of Tamil Nadu is
liable to pay to the petitioners in these four writ petitions as also to
the widows of other government servants falling within Paragraph
7 of the Notification dated 26th May, 1979 family pension at the
rate of Rs. 100 per month with effect from !st April, 1979. We
would therefore issue a writ directing the State of Tamil Nadu to
c pay to the petitioners in all these writ petitions arrears of family
pension calculated at the rate of Rs. 100 per month from !st
April, 1979 after deducting the amount, if any, already paid by the
States of Tamil Nadu and Kerala to the Petitioners in terms of the
interim orders made by us. The State of Kerala will not be entitled
D to claim refund of any payment made to the petitioners nor rein·
bursement in respect of such payments from the State of Tamil
Nada. The arrears of family pension shall be paid by the State of
Tamil Nadu to the petitioners within four months from today and
•he State of Tamil Nadu will continue to pay to the petitioners
family pension a Rs. 100 per month on or before 10th day of
E each succeeding month in terms of the Notification dated 26th May,
1979. We may make it clear that the State of Kerala will not be
liable in future to make any payment to the petitioners since the
future liability for payment of family pension rests on the State of '.
Tamil Nadu. The State of Tamil Nadu will pay to the petitioners
costs quantified at a consolidated figure of Rs. 2,000 in all the writ
G petition8.

N.V.K. Petitions allowed.