JUDGMENT

AHMADI, J.:—Delay in Special Leave Petitions is condoned.

2. The Government of Haryana passed orders in June 1972 for the grant of first and second instalments of ad hoc relief to its employees w.e.f. 1st April, 1972 at varying rates on account of the rise in the cost of living. The third instalment of ad hoc relief was released w.e.f. 1st December, 1972 under Government Order dated 19th December, 1972. The question of grant of regular additional dearness allowance to the employees was under consideration for sometime past. By Government Order dated 20th March, 1974, the State of Haryana decided to grant additional dearness allowance to its employees w.e.f. 1st June, 1973, 1st September, 1973, 1st October, 1973 and 1st January, 1974 at the rates indicated in the table appended to the said order. The additional dearness allowance was to be calculated on the emoluments comprising pay, dearness allowance and the two ad hoc reliefs abovementioned. It was further provided that while making payments of additional dearness allowance, a part of the amount of the ad hoc reliefs earlier granted shall be adjusted as set out in columns 5 and 7 of Annexure I to the said Government Order. Such a deduction was also made from the emoluments payable to the college teachers. Thereupon, a Civil Writ Petition No. 966 of 1988 came to be filed in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana challenging the deduction made from the emoluments of the college teachers. That Writ Petition and similar other Writ Petitions were allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 18th July, 1988. The High Court held that the deduction of Rs. 45 per month made from the emoluments of the college teachers was illegal and directed a refund of the amount for the period of three years and two months immediately preceding the date of filing of the Writ Petitions and restrained the State Government and other concerned authorities from deducting the said amount from salary paid in future. Subsequently, in the case of Nitya Nand v. State of Haryana (Civil Writ Petition No. 5563-A of 1989) the High Court relying on the aforesaid decision in the case of college teachers disposed of the Writ Petition on the same terms. A spate of Writ Petitions came to be filed thereafter by other employees of the State Government and these too were allowed on the basis of the decision in Nitya Nands case. Some of these have given rise to Civil Appeals Nos. 53-60 of 1992. It may here be mentioned that against the decision of the High Court in the College Teachers case Special Leave Petitions Nos. 3695, 3572 and 3574 were filed but these were withdrawn on 12th January, 1993 for the reason which we shall point out hereafter. In subsequent Writ Petitions which came to be filed in the High Court the State Government pointed out that an error had crept in while disposing of Nitya Nands petition on the basis of the judgment in the College Teachers case. When the said group of Writ Petitions came up for hearing before a Division Bench comprising the Acting Chief Justice and J. L. Gupta, J. the petitioners were directed to make a comprehensive representation to the Government and the latter was directed to examine the same and dispose it of by a speaking order. The said representation was rejected by a speaking order broadly on the following grounds :

"1. There is no legal or vested right to get a particular quantum of dearness allowance.

2. The ad hoc reliefs were granted in the year 1972 without adopting any formula with reference to the cost of living.

3. Vide letter dated March 20, 1974, the additional dearness allowance was granted on every 8 point increase in the Consumer Price Index. The ad hoc relief given earlier on a slab system without reference to any formula was found to be higher than what was permissible on the basis of Consumer Price Index formula.

4. On the basis of calculations it was found that. the dearness allowance granted byway of ad hoc relief was in excess to the extent of Rs.