1. These appeals arise out of Writ Petitions filed by Employees of Agricultural Produce Market Committees.

2. In V. L. Bhat, Giri, G. K. Bhadri and S.P. Pawar v. the Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Haliyal, the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Haliyal and the Chief Marketing Officer, Bangalore, W. P. Nos. 11368, 11368 A, 11368B and 11368C of 1979, the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, hereinafter referred to as the 'Market Committee' passed resolutions proposing to revise the pay scales of the petitioners. The salary and allowances payable to the petitioners were included in the Budget for that year and the proposed Budget was also approved by the Chief Marketing Officer hereinafter referred to as the 'C. M.O,' The Market Committee decided to give effect to its resolutions revising the pay scales without waiting for the approval of the C.M.O. The Secretary of the Market Committee informed the petitioners, by its letter Ext. D. that the resolutions of the Market Committee having not received the approval of the C.M.O. the revised pay could not be given to them. The petitioners prayed for quashing this letter and for a direction to the Market Committee to implement the resolution and give them the benefit of the revised pay scales, Rama Jois, J. held that the C. M. O., must be regarded as having accorded approval to the revision of pay scales to the petitioners as he had accorded approval to the Budget proposals wherein a provision had been made for the revised pay scales and issued a writ in the nature of Mandamus to the Market Committee to give effect to the revised pay scales and give all consequential benefits to the petitioners.

3. In H. Veerappa v. Chief Marketing Officer and Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Harihar - W. P. No, 13183 of 1979 and other cases the Petitioners are the employees of the Agricultural Market Committees at Harihar and other places. Each of the Market Committees passed resolutions to revise the pay scales of its employees and forwarded the resolutions for approval to the C.M.O., who refused to accord the approval in some cases and deferred giving approval in other cases to the resolutions of the Market Committees. The petitioners prayed for quashing of the orders of the C.M.O. and for directions to the Market Committees to give them the benefit of the revised pay scales, Puttaswamy, J. held that the orders of the C.M.O. are unauthorised, quashed his orders and issued a writ in the nature of Mandamus to the respective Market Committees in each of these cases to implement the resolutions and give the revised pay scales to the Petitioners and also to make payments to which they are entitled to. Aggrieved by the orders in all these Writ Petitions the C.M.O., as also the Market Committees have filed appeals separately.

4. The parties are referred to in this order with reference to the position they occupied as petitioners and respondents in the Writ Petitions.

5. A Market Committee it was argued on behalf of the petitioners has absolute power to appoint its officers and servants and pay salary and allowances to them under the unamended S.61 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966, and therefore the approval of the C.M.O., for appointment or for paying salary to such officers and staff is not necessary. It was argued on behalf of the Respondents that such a power is not absolute but is subject to the limitations prescribed in the Rules and as the Rules in force provide that the approval of the C.M.O. is necessary, unless the C.M.O., accords his approval a Market Committee has no competence to appoint its officers and staff and pay salary and allowances to them.

6. The Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' came into force with effect from 1st May, 1968. A Market Committee is established for each market area under S. 9 of the Act. A Market Committee gets the power to employ such