- 1 - WA No.722/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WA NO. 722/2024(S-RES) BETWEEN: THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.V. VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. UMASHANKARA .C, S/O CHANNAVEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. MRS. GEETHA N.R., W/O S. SUDARSHAN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. MRS. LATHA .B, W/O B.N. RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. 4. MRS. PADMA .T, W/O NAGARAJA H.M, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, - 2 - WA No.722/2024 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. 5. SRI. B.S. RAGHAVENDRA, S/O B.M. SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. 6. MRS. N. SYAMALA, W/O S. RAMA MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. 7. MRS. S. GAYATHRI, W/O S.V. RAMAGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. 8. MRS. REKHA .S, W/O LAKSHMIKANT .K, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. 9. MRS. R.B. HEMALATHA, D/O R. BASAVANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. 10. MRS. N. POORNIMA, W/O MAHESH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. 11. MRS. DHANALAKSHMI .S, W/O PRAKASH WILLIAM, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. - 3 - WA No.722/2024 12. SADAT ALI, S/O ABDUL KHADAR SAB AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. 13. SRI. S.N. NATARAJA, S/O NAGARAJ, MAJOR, WORKING A COURT OFFICER, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R11, SRI. G.M. ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R12, R13 SERVED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22/02/2024 PASSED IN WP NO.2851/2022; DISMISS WP NO.2851/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 21.03.2025, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’ THIS DAY, V KAMESWAR RAO J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) The challenge in this intra-court appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition - 4 - WA No.722/2024 No.2851/2022 (S-RES), whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by stating in Paragraph-21 as under:- 21. In view of the above, the 1st respondent has to reconsider the case of the petitioners, strictly in consonance with the judgments rendered by the Apex Court referred to supra not with reference to Rule 7 r/w Note 10 of the Rules 2008. In the result, the following:- ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed in part. ii) Memo dated 03.09.2021 issued by the 1st respondent stands set-aside. iii) The matter is remitted to the first respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioners and set the anomaly right, in accordance with law. iv) First respondent shall pass orders within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.” 2. The writ petition was filed by Respondents No.1 to 12 with the following prayers:- i) Call for records. ii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the Memo bearing No.HCE.13/2021 dated 3rd September, 2021 issued by the 1st respondent produced at Annexure-A. iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or Direction for curing the anomaly in the Pay Scale with regard to Section 6(b) of the - 5 - WA No.722/2024 High Court of Karnataka (Officers and Officials) Revised Pay Rules, 2018 produced herein as Annexure-B in so far as the petitioners are concerned:- iv) To pass such further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity; 3. The order dated 03.09.2021 has been passed by the Registrar General of this Court, stating as under:- “MEMO Sub: To set right the anomaly caused due to pay fixation to he eligible Court officer of this office-Reg. Ref: 1.Representation of Court Officers requesting to set right the anomaly caused due to pay fixation on par with their Junior Sri S.N.Nataraja, Court Officer of this office - Reg. 2. As per Rule 7 read with Note 10 of both 6th Central Civil Service (Revised) Pay Rules 2008 and 7th Central Civil Service (Revised) Pay Rules 2016. 3. As per opinion dated 24.08.2021 of Financial Advisor. 4. Orders by the Hon'ble High Court Staff Committee and orders passed thereon. ***** With reference to the above subject, I am directed to inform that, the joint representation - 6 - WA No.722/2024 submitted by you requesting to set right the anomaly caused due to pay fixation on par with your Junior Sri S.N.Nataraja, Court Officer has been rejected by the Hon'ble High Court Staff Committee and the same has been approved by Hon'ble Chief Justice, that as per the opinion of Financial Advisor. that the conditions as per Rule 7 read with Note 10 of both 6th Central Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules 2008 and 7th Central Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules 2016 are not fulfilled.” 4. The grievance of the Respondents No.1 to 12 before the learned single judge was primarily against the denial of higher pay fixation at par with their Junior i.e, Respondent No.13. The above memo reveal that, the request has been rejected by the Staff Committee, which was of the view that the conditions as per Rule-7 read with Note- 10 of 6th Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2008 and 7th Central Civil Services Pay Rules, 2016 have no applicability/fulfilled. 5. The Respondents No.1 to 13 are the employees of this Court and are presently working as Court Officers. The Respondents No. 1 to 12 were initially appointed as Second Division Assistants; thereafter promoted as First Division Assistants; then Assistant Court Officers and are presently working as Court Officers, on which post they were promoted. - 7 - WA No.722/2024 It was their case before the learned Single Judge that, the 13th Respondent is also in the cadre of the Court Officer. The Seniority List as notified on 08.04.2021 by the appellant, shows the Respondents No. 1 to 12 are senior to the Respondent No.13. 6. In other words, the Respondent No.13 despite being junior to them is drawing a higher pay. Owing to this disparity in the pay Respondents No.1 to 12, made representation dated 29.10.2021, which resulted in the order referred to above. 7. The case of the Respondents No.1 to 12 before the learned Single Judge was that, while the Central Pay Scales were adopted by this Court on 06.03.2018 w.e.f. 06.10.2004 in terms of a notification, the anomaly with regard to pay of Respondent No.13 continued, though the respondent no.1 to 12 and 13 are working on the same post with identical duties/functions having common seniority. It was their case that, in terms of Rule 6(b) of the High Court of Karnataka (Officers and Officials) Revised Pay Rules, 2018 (in short, ‘HCK Rules of 2018’) every anomaly has to be cured. It was their case that the prayer was rejected by the impugned - 8 - WA No.722/2024 memo on 03.09.2021, without considering the contents of the representation of the Respondents 1 to 12. 8. On the other hand, the case of the appellant herein, who was the Respondent No.1 before the learned Single Judge was, the Respondents No.1 to 12/petitioners have no right to claim equivalent pay that of Respondent No.13. The Respondent No.13 got promotion from the post of Typist to Stenographer, pursuant to which his pay was fixed higher to what Respondent No.1 to 12 were drawing. The difference in pay continued till the Respondents No.1 to 12 and 13 were promoted as Assistant Court Officer and also Court Officer and as such the petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right that they should be granted the pay as being drawn by Respondent No.13 on his promotion as Stenographer. There is no anomaly, as noted in paragraphs- 12 & 13 of the learned Single Judge order. “12. The solitary grievance of petitioners is, the pay scale of one S.N.Nataraja, 2nd respondent herein is higher than that of the present petitioners. The claim of petitioners is that the 2nd respondent is junior to petitioners in any of the seniority lists of any of the cadres. In support of the same a seniority list dated 08.04.2021 is annexed to the petition. In the said seniority list, petitioners are shown as senior to 2nd respondent and it is an admitted fact that petitioners are drawing lesser salary than that of 2nd - 9 - WA No.722/2024 respondent. The pay scale of all the petitioners in comparison to 2nd respondent is that, petitioners are drawing Rs.15,260/- as their basic for the year 2009, which is followed throughout and even as on date the petitioners are drawing lesser pay than that of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent even for the year 2009, was drawing a basic pay of Rs.17,540/- which is definitely more than the basic pay of petitioners. Therefore, petitioners have prayed for setting right the anomaly. 13. The defence of the 1st respondent is, that the 2nd respondent was granted several increments between 2003 and 2008 in the cadre of Stenographer and thereafter was promoted as Assistant Court Officer on 01-08-2009 and his pay was refixed in terms of the Revised Pay Rules of 2018. It was at Rs.10,000/- on 01-08-2019, therefore the corresponding pay scale in the Central Revised pay scales of 2018 was at Rs.17,540/-. It is the further defence that in respect of the petitioners, their pay scale was fixed equivalent to the central scale in the cadre of Typist as on 06.10.2004 while granting 10 years Time Bound Advancement and they were all promoted as First Division Assistants, in the year 2008 and only one increment was granted to them. As such, there is no anomaly.” 9. The case of the appellant was, there cannot be any anomaly in pay of seniors when Junior is drawing higher pay under fortuitous circumstances, because of promotion to the post of Stenographer. It was their stand, even if the scale of pay at the level of Court Officer is Rs.10,000/- still the fixation of pay in that scale, shall be on the basis of pay being drawn earlier. The case of the appellant is, Rule 6(b) of the - 10 - WA No.722/2024 HCK Rules 2018, more specifically Paragraph-6, which reads as under is applicable in normal circumstances and not when a Junior is drawing higher pay from a much earlier date:- 15. Rule 6(b) of the Karnataka Rules, 2018 reads as follows: “…. 6. Other service Conditions: …. (b) Consequent upon adoption of Central Pay scale and Fixation of Pay to the Officers and Officials of High Court of Karnataka anomaly, if any, shall be cured after obtaining necessary orders from the Hon’ble Chief Justice, High Court of Karnataka. ….” 10. The appellant has justified the rejection of the representation made by the Respondents No.1 to 12. 11. We note the learned Single Judge relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of JAIPAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [(1988) 3 SCC 354] and then MEWA RAM KANOJIA VS. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES [(1989) 2 SCC 235], and also THE STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. JAGJIT SINGH [(2017) 1 SCC 148], held that the appellant has to consider the case of the Respondents No. 1 to 12 strictly in consonance with the - 11 - WA No.722/2024 judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred supra not with reference to Rule 7 read with Note 10 of the Rules 2008, but in the context of HCK Rules 2008. 12. The submission of Smt. B.V. Vidyulatha, the learned counsel for the appellant was that, the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that there is no anomaly, which requires to be set right and the difference in pay is because, admittedly the Respondent No.13 was promoted to the cadre of Stenographer in the year 2003. From 2003 onwards, the Respondent No.13 was always in a higher pay than the Respondents No.1 to 12, which continued when the Central Civil Services Revised Pay Scales were adopted. 13. According to her, the memo dated 03.09.2021 is justified, whereas the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge that the Rule-7 read with Note-10 of the Rules of 2008 is applicable to the Senor Government Servant promoted to a higher post before 01.01.2006 and not to Respondents No. 1 to 12, is clearly erroneous. In fact, it was her submission that, these Rules are not applicable to the case of the Respondents No. 1 to 12. It is the case of the appellant that, only if the conditions set out in Rule-7 read with Note-10 of - 12 - WA No.722/2024 2008 and 2016 Rules are fulfilled, the anomaly which would arise requires consideration. Since in the case of Respondents No.1 to 12, the conditions were not fulfilled, there is no anomaly and hence, the joint representation was rightly rejected. She also stated that the learned Single Judge has not distinguished the cases set out in the impugned order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, to the facts of the present case. The present case is not a simple case, where a junior working in the same cadre is permitted to draw a higher pay scale. In fact the Respondent No. 13, who was a Typist, having passed a competitive short-hand examination during the year 2003, was granted promotion to the post of Stenographer, which is equivalent to the First Division Assistant by allowing pay fixation at Rs.4,150/- from the pay of Rs.3,225/-. However, the Respondents No. 1 to 12 continued working on the existing post and in the same scale of pay till the year 2008, when they were promoted to the next cadre post of the First Division Assistant. Accordingly, they were given the pay fixation in the promotional cadre under Rule 42(6)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules w.e.f. 09.07.2008. She also highlighted the fact that, the difference in pay continued even upon pay - 13 - WA No.722/2024 fixation under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and Central Civil Services Pay Rules 2016, in as much as the Respondent No.13 continued to get more pay than the Respondents No. 1 to 12. Hence, the difference in pay being there, the pay of respondents 1 to 12 cannot be stepped up. This aspect has not been considered by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order. 14. She has also drawn our attention to Pages 25 & 26 of the memo fled by her on 12.03.2025 to show that the Respondent No.13 continued drawing higher pay than the Respondents No.1 to 12 w.e.f. 06.10.2004, when the pay of the Respondents No. 1 to 12 and 13 was fixed in the Central Pay Scale. She also stated, the documents filed are self- speaking and clearly highlight the fact that the Respondent No.13 was drawing a higher pay than the Respondents No.1 to 12. She stated that, if historically the Respondent No.13 was drawing a higher pay than the Respondents No.1 to 12 the effect thereof continued even in the cadre of the Court Officer, that too when the Respondents No.1 to 12 were promoted on the post of Court Officer, much before the Respondent No.13. She stated, changing the post from Typist to Stenographer has benefited the Respondent No.13 as his - 14 - WA No.722/2024 pay was fixed at a higher amount, which is in accordance with the Rules. She stated that, the appeal need to be allowed by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. 15. Mr. Shridhar Prabhu, the learned counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 11 and Mr. G.M. Ananda, the learned counsel for Respondent No.12 duly supporting Mr. Prabhu would contest the appeal by stating that the present appeal filed by the appellant is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and as such, a strict view need to be taken against the appellant for filing a frivolous appeal. Mr. Prabhu submits that, admittedly the Respondents No. 1 to 13 are the employees of the High Court of Karnataka and are termed as Court Servants and not Central Government Servants. They admit the fact that, the pay structure of the Central Government has been adopted for employees of the High Court. 16. The Rule 6(b) of the High Court of Karnataka (Revised Pay) Rules, 2018 deals with setting right the anomaly. Mr.Prabhu lays stress on the fact that, during the year 2003 all the Respondents No. 1 to 13 were working as Typists. While working as Typist, the Respondent No.13 was promoted as Stenographer and his pay was enhanced. The - 15 - WA No.722/2024 difference in pay continues till the date when all the respondents i.e., the Respondents No. 1 to 13 were promoted on the same post of Assistant Court Officer/Court Officer. Therefore, the appellant’s stand that the Respondents No.1 to 12 cannot plead pay parity despite being in the same cadre is clearly erroneous. He highlights the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge. He stated, the aforesaid conclusion of the learned Single Judge is unequivocal. that once the Respondents No.1 to 12 & 13 are working in the same Cadre as Court Officers, there cannot be any anomaly. This according to him is because, the Respondents No. 1 to 12 and 13 are discharging the same duties in the same cadre pursuant to their appointment as Court Officers and also Rule 6(b) of the Karnataka (Officers and Officials) Revised Pay Rules, 2018, specifically provide for curing the anomaly consequent to adoption of the Central Pay Scales. He stated, the disparity arose because of adapting the Central Pay Scale in as much as if the appellant had continued to govern the employees under the Karnataka State Pay Scales, their Pay would have continued to be equal. The disparity in the Pay that existed had got more amplified/prominent when the Respondents 1 to 12 and 13 were promoted as Assistant - 16 - WA No.722/2024 Court Officers. The disparity is required to be cured under Rule 6 of the KHC Rules 2018. 17. Mr. Prabhu has also stated, the stand of the appellant that the higher pay of the 13th respondent is on account of his getting promotion as Stenographer has no consequence on stepping-up of pay, when the respondents 1 to 12 and 13 are working on the same post of Assistant Court Officer, with identical duties with Respondent No.13, who is Junior to Respondents 1 to 12. ANALYSIS 18. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, before we answer the issue, which arises for consideration i.e., whether the Respondents No. 1 to 12 are entitled to the stepping up of pay, it is necessary to highlight certain pre-conditions to be satisfied for a senior to seek pay parity/stepping-up of pay qua his junior. (i) Both the junior and senior employee must belong to the same cadre and are promoted/appointed on identical posts viz., Stenographer, as it is on his promotion as Stenographer that Respondent No.13 started drawing higher pay. - 17 - WA No.722/2024 (ii) The pre-revised scale of pay in the lower and higher post in which they are entitled to draw the pay, should be identical. (iii) The anomaly should have arisen as a direct result of the application of FR22C or any other Rule/Order regulating Pay Fixation on Promotion. 19. If the junior officer even in the lower scale draws a higher pay than the senior due to advance increments or for any other reason, the stepping-up of pay provision can not be invoked. The facts as noted above clearly demonstrate that the Respondent No.13 was drawing higher pay from the year 2004. It is the higher pay/difference in pay, which continues to govern the pay of Respondent No.13, even on the higher posts. The submission of Mr. Prabhu that, as the Respondents No.1 to 12 have been promoted as Assistant Court Officers/Court Officers as such their pay need to be brought at par is untenable as, stepping up of pay has to be only when the above conditions are fulfilled, which in this case have not been fulfilled. 20. The learned counsel for the appellant is justified in highlighting the chart, which has been filed vide memo dated 26.11.2024. The said chart clearly depicts that the Respondent No.13 was drawing an amount of Rs.5,675/- as - 18 - WA No.722/2024 against the respondents No. 1 to 12 drawing a pay of Rs.4,400/- on 01.10.2005. It is incongruence to contend that, once the Respondents No. 1 to 12 and 13 have come to the cadre of the Assistant Court Officers/Court Officers, their Pay must be at parity on the basis of the principle of equal pay for equal work. We are unable to accept such a plea for the simple reason that the concept of equal pay for equal work shall not be applicable in the facts of this case so far in the context of stepping-up of pay. No doubt, the Respondents No. 1 to 12 and 13 are working on the post of Court Officer with identical duties, but still the pay of Respondent No.13 is higher for historical reasons as depicted above. Hence, it cannot be said that, the Respondents No.1 to 12 being senior, their pay need to be stepped-up at par with Respondent No.13. We also say, because, difference in pay of Respondents No.1 to 12 and 13 is not in same cadre, in as much as the Respondents No.1 to 12 were in Assistant cadre, whereas the Respondent No.13 was in stenography cadre the conditions as stated above are not fulfilled. It is true that the post of Respondents No.1 to 12 and 13 got merged at the level of Assistant Court Officer but that merger shall not have the effect of treating them at par on the post of - 19 - WA No.722/2024 stenographer, when the disparity in pay has already arisen. In fact the law suggest that disparity must have arisen if the Senior and Junior are in the same cadre and in view of fixation of pay under Rule 22(1)(a)(i)(FR). It is not such a case here. 21. In this regard, we may refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors Vs. Shushil Kumar Paul and Ors reported in [(1998) 5 SCC 268], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated as under:- “Delay condoned. Special leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The only question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was right in allowing the application of the respondents directing the appellants to step up their pay so as to make it at par with the pay of B.C. Mishra who was their junior but getting a higher pay. It is held by the Tribunal that the respondents and Mishra belonged to the same cadre and their pay scales were also the same in the lower posts and, therefore, they are entitled to the benefit of stepping up . But, what the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration is the Circular dated 4.11.1993 issued by the Government of India, Department of Personnel & Training which clearly provides that the anomaly for granting benefit of stepping up of pay should be directly as a result of - 20 - WA No.722/2024 the application of fundamental rule 22-C and that if a junior officer draws a higher pay in the lower post either because of advance increments or on any other account then the provision of stepping up would not apply in such a case. Moreover in paragraph 2(c) of the Circular it is, further, provided that if a senior joins the higher post, later than the junior, for whatsoever reason, whereby he draws less pay than the junior, in such a case senior cannot, claim stepping up of pay at per with the junior. In this case what had happened was that the respondents and Mishra were appointed as typists clerks on different dates but were promoted to the post of Welfare Inspector Grade -III on the same date. Mishra was promoted to Grade II earlier than the respondents on ad hoc basis. He was promoted as Welfare Inspector Grade II on 1.2.1981 on ad hoc basis and worked continuously on the higher post upto 1.1.84 on which date the two respondents and Mishra were promoted as Welfare Inspectors Grade II on regular basis. At that time he was getting a higher pay than the respondents because of his earlier ad hoc promotion. Mishra was again promoted as Welfare Inspector Grade I on ad hoc basis and worked on that post continuously from 28.7.86 to 13.1.93. On 13.1.93 the respondents and Mishra were promoted to Grade I on regular basis. On that date also Mishra was getting a higher pay because of his ad hoc promotion as Welfare Inspector Grade-I. It was for that reason that Mishra, even though was a junior, was getting more pay than the respondents. In view of these facts, the Circular governing stepping up of pay issued by the Railway Board and the law laid down by this Court in Union of India & Others Vs. O.P. Saxena ( 1997 (6) SCC 360 ) the respondents were not entitled to the benefit of stepping up. The Tribunal, thus committed an error in granting that benefit to the respondents. We , therefore, allow these appeals and set aside the impugned orders of the Tribunal. - 21 - WA No.722/2024 No order as to costs”. (Emphasis supplied) 22. From the above judgment, it is clear that, a junior who gets promotion earlier than the senior resulting in a higher pay fixation, whereby he draws more pay than his senior, the senior is not entitled to stepping-up of pay. 23 To have a better view of the issue, which falls for consideration the following table becomes relevant. - 22 - WA No.722/2024 24. Though Mr. Prabhu has made submissions to justify the grant of stepping-up of the pay of the Respondents - 23 - WA No.722/2024 No. 1 to 12 qua Respondent No.13, we are of the view that in view of the position of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is applicable to the facts of this case, the learned Single Judge’s conclusion is clearly erroneous and liable to be set aside. We order accordingly. 25. The appeal is allowed and disposed of. We set aside the impugned order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2851/2022 (S-RES). There shall be no order as to costs. 26. In view of disposal of this appeal, the IA No.1/2025 for Direction and IA No.2/2024 for Stay do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE KGR*