JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenge the order of the State Government asking them to refund an amount equal to the value of the perquisites, the petitioners have been allowed so far till the passing of the impugned order. ( 2. ) THE matter arises under the following circumstances. The State government had to organise a defence force to meet the unsocial activities in some of the dacoit-infested areas. The Government thus formed Gram raksha Samities and Organisers were appointed at tahsil level. The petitioners were all appointed as tahsil Organisers, Village Defence Society in various tahsil places. These did not form part of the regular Police force. The tahsil Organisers were ranked equal to the post of Sub-Inspectors of police. The petitioners also became quasi permanent on the post. Since the rank of the Tahsil Organisers was equated with the post of Sub-Inspector of police, the petitioners were given the same scale of pay as that of the latter. The Sub Inspector of Police enjoyed certain perquisites just as, free residential quarters and conveyance allowance. By an order of the Inspector-General of Police, the petitioners were also allowed the same privileges, namely, free residential quarters and conveyance allowance. By a memorandum dated 26-9-1966, the Inspector-General of Police specifically allowed the concession of rent-free accommodation to the petitioners as they were to be treated on par with the Sub Inspectors of the regular Police force in all respects. It was stated in the memorandum that the petitioners were entitled to all privileges admissible to Sub-Inspectors. The Tahsil Organisers were thus receiving the benefits of rent-free accommodation or rent in lieu thereof and conveyance allowance. ( 3. ) THE petitioners were given the above concession and allowance till 23-7-1976 when by an Order No. 4085/5211 /ii/ (1) dated 23-7-1976, the petitioners were informed that the Tahsil / Organisers Village Defence Society will not be given rent-free accommodation and will also not get the conveyance allowance as were available to the Sub-Inspectors. The order also directed that the allowances paid to the petitioners upto that time should be realised from them. The petitioners, therefore, seek to challenge the validity of this order. ( 4. The order also directed that the allowances paid to the petitioners upto that time should be realised from them. The petitioners, therefore, seek to challenge the validity of this order. ( 4. ) THE State Governments stand is that the scale of pay was merely equated with that of the post of Sub-Inspector of Police but no valid sanction was given for providing rent-free accommodation and conveyance allowance, and they were not allowed the other privileges given to the Sub-Inspector. In any case, as no prior sanction from the Finance Department has been obtained for giving them the benefit of rent-free accommodation and the conveyance allowance, no such benefit could be given to the petitioners. ( 5. ) IT would be seen that the posts in question held by the petitioners were newly created. The Government indicated that such post shall rank equal to that of the Sub-Inspector. The Inspector-General appears justified in clarifying and allowing the newly created posts the same privileges as were available to the Sub-Inspectors. Now, it is not a matter of a year or so that the petitioners received the said benefits but they had been receiving them for the last 10 years. It could not be contended with justification that the payments made to the petitioners were under mistake. There was no confusion in the Inspector Generals order and it could not be said that the order was over-looked for 10 years. In any case, after the memorandum issued by the Inspector-General of Police and after payment by the Government for 10 years, a presumption could be said to have arisen in favour of the petitioners that what the Government intended to pay was what had actually been paid. No order contrary to this has been filed and we are constrained to hold that the payments made to the petitioners were rightful. We, therefore, think that the order demanding refund of the value of perquisites is not justified. ( 6. ) IT is, however, open to the Government to reduce the pay scale or to withdraw the perquisites payable to a particular class of Government servants. No exception could be taken if the perquisites were discontinued prospectively. No grievance can legitimately be made that the Government have withdrawn the perquisites as far as the petitioners are concerned. The services of the petitioners have been created specially and no question of discrimination arises. No exception could be taken if the perquisites were discontinued prospectively. No grievance can legitimately be made that the Government have withdrawn the perquisites as far as the petitioners are concerned. The services of the petitioners have been created specially and no question of discrimination arises. The order of the Government shall operate prospectively. The petitioners shall not be entitled to any perquisites as contained in the order after it had been made. The order shall not, however, operate retrospectively and the Government shall not be entitled to ask for refund of the amount already paid to the petitioners. ( 7. ) THE petition succeeds in part as stated above. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. The outstanding amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioners. Petition partly allowed.