1. The issues involved in both the writ applications are same. Thus, both the writ applications are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Counsel for the petitioners at the very outset submits that he is confining his prayer only to the order, by which, it has been directed that the excess payment, which has been made to the petitioners will be recovered from the salary of the petitioners. Thus, in these writ applications, it has to be decided whether the order of recovery from the salary of the petitioners, on the facts of the case, is justified or not.

3. These petitioners are Grade-IV employees, and are serving as ‘Jamadar’ of Jharkhand High Court. The petitioners were appointed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court. After reorganization and bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the petitioners are working in the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court as ‘Jamadar’. A circular was issued on 18.4.2009 by the Finance Department of the Government of Jharkhand which approved transport allowance. The said Resolution has been brought on record and marked as Annexure 2 to the writ application. In the said Resolution, it has been mentioned that since different Regional Offi