Hon'ble Rajesh Tandon J.

Rule. Respondents waive service.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Both the parties have agreed that the matter may be decided finally.

3. By the present writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Government order dated 26.08.1999, which imposes ceiling on dearness allowance payable to the petitioners.

4. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petitions are that the petitioners are work charge employees of Public Works Department. The Government vide order dated 26.8.99 imposed ceiling on dearness allowance payable to the petitioners Relevant paragraph of the said G.O. is quoted below:

Further by order dated 1.2.01 while granting dearness allowance the following ceiling was imposed:

5. Similar ceiling was also imposed regarding payment of bonus to the work charge employees. Relevant paragraph of G.O. dated 1.3.2001 is quoted below :

6. The petitioners have submitted that ceiling imposed as mentioned above is in contravention of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and the same is liable to be declared as ultra virus to the Constitution of India.

7. The Division Bench of this Court has passed order on 10.5.2002 in Writ Petition No. 392 (SB) of 2002 to the following effect :

"Notice on behalf of the opposite parties has been accepted by the Chief Standing Counsel, who prays for and allowed four weeks time to file counter affidavit, list thereafter.

In the mean time, the opposite parties shall make payment of salary to the petitioners from the current month ignoring the calling prescribed."

8. The purpose of dearness allowance is to neutralise increase in the costs of living due to rise in the price. Apex Court in the case of C.V K.U. Sahakari Mandli us. G.S. Barot, AIR 1980 SC 31, has defined the purpose of grant of dearness allowance. The observations are quoted below:

The law thus clear that dearness allowance is intended to neutralise a portion of the increase in the cost of living. Though 100 percent neutralisation is not advisable as it will lead to inflation, full neutralisation may be permissible only in the case of the lowest class of employees. The management is entitled to complain if the neutralisation is more than 100 percent.

9. The dearness allowance cannot be clubbed with the pay. Pay is not a bounty but it is a right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it is also covered under Article 21 from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case Kapila Hingorani (supra).

10. The petitioners' counsel also drew the attention of the Court towards the Government Order dated 1.1.2000 issued by the State' of U.P. by which restriction imposed with regard to ceiling on dearness allowance on the work charge employees have been withdrawn. The Government order reads as under:

11. Clause 668 of Work charged Establishment Condition of Employment reads as under :

668. In all cases previous sanction of the competent authority as laid down in Volume I of the Handbook or in the departmental manuals of orders is necessary which should specify in respect of each appointment (1) the consolidated rate of pay (2) the period of sanction, and (3) the full name (as given in the estimate) of the work and the nature of the duties on which the person engaged would be employed."

12. The petitioner has also argued that there cannot be arbitrariness in the salary in as much as any curtailment of pay will amount to unequal treatment as held in the case of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi etc. vs. State of U.P. & others. The Apex Court has observed as under:

"The preamble of the Constitution of India resolves to secure to all its citizens Justice, Social economic and political and Equality of status and opportunity. Every State action must be aimed at achieving this goal. Part IV of the Constitution contains 'Directive Principles of State Policy' which are fundamental in the governance of the country and are aimed at securin