1. Petitioners, who are 21 in number, are Village Health Guides in the Primary Health Centre engaged on monthly honorarium of.... Rs. 50/- and in this writ application their prayer is to direct the respondents to regularise their services on the post of Village Health Guides and grant them the scale of Class IV employees. In the writ application they have paid one set of court fee and the Stamp Reporter has found the court fee paid by the petitioners to be insufficient and had directed the petitioners to file 20 more sets of court fee. The petitioners did not file the required sets of court fee and took a plea that as common relief has been sought for, filing of one set of court fee is sufficient. This did not satisfy the Stamp Reporter and accordingly the matter has been placed for consideration before this Court.

2. Mr. Jai Shankar Barnwal appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that all the petitioners are working as Village Level Guides and their prayer is for regularisation of their services and payment of salary in the scale granted to Class IV employees, that is, relief being common, filing of one set of court fee shall be sufficient. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a Division Bench order of this Court in Smt. Krishna Pati Devi and others V/s. The State of Bihar and others [1998 (2) P.L.J.R. 765] and my attention has been drawn to paragraph 4 of the order which reads as follows :

"Having heard counsel and going through the reasons of the learned writ court, we are of the opinion that whenever interest is common or similar, whether by one stroke of pen, if the impugned notification can be set aside, one set of court fee is only required. In the instant case, considering the relief of the petitioners, the relief as claimed is common. It is not that though by one notification their services were terminated but they have claimed different reliefs. This is how the common interests between the co-petitioners are to be judged in respect of payment of court fee. This being so, we are of the opinion that if one set of court fee is paid while challenging the impugned order in the writ petition, that is sufficient and for individual petitioners no separate court fee is required."

3. Another decision on which Sri Baranwal has placed reliance is a judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Ran Nandan Sharma & others V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors., [2000 (3) All PLR 345 : 2001 (3) PLJR 53] and my attention has been drawn to the following passage of the judgment, which reads as follows :

"4. Thus, what is relevant is that two or more persons cannot join in a single application for a writ of mandamus to enforce separate claims, but where the claims are same and against the same authority, two or more persons can join in a single application for a writ of mandamus.

5. In the present case, the claim of all the petitioners are one and the same as against the same respondent authorities. As such, this Court does not find any reasons for requiring them to pay 32 sets of additional Court-fee for the remaining 32 petitioners. Defect no. (c) with respect to 32 sets of Court-fee wanting pointed out by the office is, thus, overruled."

4. I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel. Payment of court fee on a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is governed by Article 1(d)(i) of Schedule II of the Court-Fees as amended by Section 2 of Court Fees (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1995 (Bihar Act 7 of 1996). Same reads as follows :

Schedule II Fixed Fees Application for petition XX XX XX XX XX

(d) When presented to a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Rs. 250.

5 Here each of the petitioners is praying for regularisation of their services and for payment of salary in the scale of Class IV employee. Hence each of the petitioners are praying for individual relief. It has to be borne in mind that petition is on behalf of each of them. Although petiti