JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the Government-respondents to withdraw its order demanding cash security and personal security from the village Level Workers in service under the Department of Agriculture. ( 2. ) THIS petition has been preferred by the M. P. Gram Sewak Sangh which is a registered society under the M. P. Societies Registration Act, 1959. The society claims that they represent the interest of village level workers and this petition is filed by them in a representative capacity. Petitioner No. 2 is a village level worker and there could be no question as to in his locus standi to maintain the petition. Under the M. P. Financial Code, Vol. I, chapter 14, Art 282, the head of the Department is enjoined to demand a security from the Government servant if such servant handles cash or Government property. The rule is as under :- "282. Except where exemption may be made by special or general orders of Government every cashier, store-keeper and other subordinate who is entrusted with the custody of cash, stores or other valuables should be required to furnish security, the amount being regulated according to circumstances and to local conditions in each case under the orders of the Head of the Department, and to execute a security bond, setting forth the conditions under which Government will hold the security and may ultimately refund or appropriate it. " ( 3. ) THE Development Commissioner, Bhopal by a memorandum dated 8th January 1959, ordered that all Gram Sewaks handling cash or stores would be required to deposit Rs. 100 as security amount in cash in the local post office Savings Bank. In supersession of the above order, the Director of Agriculture, M. P. Government, issued a standing order No. A-I/14-II/72 / 4532, dated 13-5-1971, whereby it is ordered that the Gram Sewaks should furnish cash security of Rs. 1,000 and personal security of Rs. 1,000. The order thus required every Gram Sewak to furnish a security of Rs. 2,000. It was further directed that the Drawing and Disbursing Officer will not draw the salary of the Gram Sewaks after June 1971 unless the security was finished. The Gram Sewak made a representation to the Deputy Director of Agriculture and the operation of the order was stayed for a while. 2,000. It was further directed that the Drawing and Disbursing Officer will not draw the salary of the Gram Sewaks after June 1971 unless the security was finished. The Gram Sewak made a representation to the Deputy Director of Agriculture and the operation of the order was stayed for a while. The petitioner No. 2 drew his salary upto September 1972 without any deduction of the instalments towards the security deposits. The drawing and disbursing officer then ordered to deduct the security amount in instalments from the salaries. The Village Level Workers (including the petitioner No. 2 ). are, therefore, not receiving full salaries and the security amount is being deducted in instalments. Petitioner No. 2 contends that he is not designated as ex-officio Samiti Sewak and the order cannot be made applicable to him as also to the other ex-officio Samiti Sewaks as they do not handle the cash or store. They challenge the order demanding security from the Village Level Workers as illegal and unconstitutional. ( 4. ) THE main point for consideration before us is whether it was competent for the Government by the impugned order to have asked for deduction from the salary of the petitioner No. 2 towards security amount to be furnished by the Gram Sewaks and whether it was competent to demand any security from them. It is contended that the Gram Sewaks serving under the Government acquired a right to property in the salary and any deduction from the salary would be deprivation of property without authority of law. It was, therefore, incumbent on the State Government to have framed rules which enabled them to take an action of the salary for appropriating it towards the security required to be furnished by the Gram Sewaks. In the return, the rules from Financial Code have been quoted which require that whenever Government servant is handling cash or store or things like seems fertilisers, pesticides, hire charges of plant protection, equipments etc. he must be required to furnish security. ( 5. ) ALL the Gram Sewaks serving in the State were declared as ex-officio samiti Sewaks of the village Co-operative Societies by the Government letter no. 5578-1717-XIV-II dated 4-9-1967. In the discharge of their duties, they were required to handle stores, seeds, agricultural implements and plant protection implements. he must be required to furnish security. ( 5. ) ALL the Gram Sewaks serving in the State were declared as ex-officio samiti Sewaks of the village Co-operative Societies by the Government letter no. 5578-1717-XIV-II dated 4-9-1967. In the discharge of their duties, they were required to handle stores, seeds, agricultural implements and plant protection implements. For success of the rural development programme, it was necessary that they were given the discretion to handle the seeds, pesticides, fertilisers etc. Even the cash would be handled by them. The sale proceeds of seeds, pesticides etc. would pass through their hands. Under the Financial Code, since they were handling cash and other goods and stores, a security ought to be demanded from them. The aim and object of such security being to safe guard the cash handling and store handling. The department was, therefore, justified in demanding security from the above workers. The directions of the Department to deduct a portion of amount from the salary for appropriating it towards security ante from the power to demand security. The Financial Code was originally framed by Government of India in 1919. The Code has been continued substantially in the same form even under the present Constitution. The Governor of Madhya Pradesh by virtue of powers vested in him under Article 166 (3) of the Constitution adopted the Financial Code for more convenient transaction of business. Now, if by the Financial Code it was competent to demand security, it was also competent to realise the security in instalments by deducting it from the salary. The power is already there under the Financial Code. The power undoubtedly is an administrative power exercised by the Department. Such power flows from the Financial Code and we do not think that it was necessary for the execution of such powers to have framed separate rules. It is true that no person could be deprived of his property except without authority of law and after paying him due compensation. It would be seen that the financial Code provides the necessary authority. ( 6. ) WE, therefore, see no force in this petition and dismiss the same. There shall be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. The outstanding amount of security shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.