JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners assailing the Notification dated 01.10.2020 issued by Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, which excludes `special allowance' for the purpose of fixation of pay on deputation. Petitioners have also sought quashing of all consequential orders fixing/re-fixing their pay and/or seeking recovery, as the case may be.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, factual matrix to the extent relevant and captured in the writ petition is that Petitioners No.1 to 9 are serving as Recovery Officers at the Debts Recovery Tribunals (`DRTs'); Petitioners No.10 to 14 are serving on the post of Assistant Registrars; Petitioners No.15 to 20 are Registrars; Petitioner No.21 is serving as Registrar at Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (`DRAT') and Petitioners No.22 to 23 were working as Assistant Registrar and Recovery Officer, respectively and have served their deputation period at the respective DRTs and returned to their parent bank. Impugned Notification dated 01.10.2020 has been issued by Respondent No.1 directing the respective DRATs/DRTs to act according to the Notification dated 01.10.2020.

3. It is averred in the writ petition that `pay' and other conditions of service of the Petitioners in their parent banks are governed and regulated by Officers' Service Regulations framed by their respective parent banks, and amended from time to time pursuant to wage revisions for Officers vide Joint Notes signed between the Indian Banks' Association (`IBA') and Officers' Associations.

4. By the 7th Joint Note signed between IBA and Officers' Associations on 25.05.2015, salaries of officers of the Public Sector Banks, including the Petitioners, were revised w.e.f. 01.11.2012 after communication of `no objection' by the Government of India. By this Note, `special allowance' was introduced as a component of pay and along with the applicable Dearness Allowance (`DA') thereon, is a part of Basic Pay. Petitioners state that they had been drawing the `special allowance' while working at their parent banks since 7th Joint Note was implemented in all the concerned banks. Necessary circulars have also been issued to this effect by the banks and amendments have been carried out in the respective Officers' Service Regulations. Petitioners continued to draw the `special allowance' as part of their Basic Pay even when they were deputed at the respective DRAT/DRTs. It is further averred that the appointment orders issued to all Petitioners provided that their pay and other terms of conditions on deputation will be regulated in accordance with DoPT O.M. dated 17.06.2010 and para 5.1 thereof provides for fixation of salaries and emoluments taking into account the Last Pay Certificates (`LPCs')/last salary slips issued by the parent banks. Petitioners exercised option in terms of para 4.1 of the O.M. and elected to draw pay attached to the ex-cadre posts to which they were appointed on deputation, except for Petitioners No.3, 11 and 16, who opted for Bank's pay.

5. It is further stated that except Petitioners No.1, 12, 18 and 21, even in respect of those Petitioners who joined on deputation posts after the impugned Notification was issued, Basic Pay was fixed including `special allowance' in view of the LPCs issued by the parent Banks. However, by the impugned Notification, Respondent No.1 has illegally dissected and excluded `special allowance', which is an essential component of pay drawn by the Petitioners in the parent organizations and also issued consequential orders fixing the pay of Petitioners No.1, 12, 18 and 21 and re-fixing the pay of Petitioners No. 2, 13 and 14, excluding `special allowance'. Recovery of the allowance paid is sought from Petitioners No.2 and 14. This has compelled the Petitioners to approach this Court.

6. Challenging the Notification and consequential pay fixation/re-fixation orders, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the