JUDGMENT 1. - These three writ petitions have been filed by the employees of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur. In writ No. 1386,82, Prahlad Singh, dams to be the General Secretary of the Rajasthan Vidyut-Shramik Maha Sangh. The following prayar has been made in this writ petition: "It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may kindly be accepted and: (a) By issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction the non-petitioner be directed to fulfil the undertaking given by the C.M., Rajasthan, dated 15-7-1982. (b) By issuing a writ of certiorari and last three lines (regarding the employees convicted during the strike) of the clause 1 and clause 3 of the impugned directive No. RSEB/PAS/D/108 dated 3rd Sept, 1982 may kindly be declared illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional and may kindly be quashed. (c) By a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ, order or direction the non-petitioner No. 2 may kindly be directed to pay regular salary, wages or allowances to the aforesaid employees every month, even if it does not allow them to resume their duties. (d) By a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ, order or direction any other relief may kindly be allowed which this Hon'ble Court deems fit for the aforesaid employees." 2. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Karmchari Federation is petitioner in the Writ Petition No 1661/82. Both these organisations claim to be trade unions duly registered and they claim to represent the employees of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board working at various places all over Rajasthan. The third writ petition has been filed by Jagdish Gupta (No. 1448/82), who is an employee of the Board and claims to be the General Secretary of the Vidyut-Karmchari Sangh, Alwar (A registered trade union under the Indian Trade Union Act) functioning at Alwar. 3. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have narrated the history relating to the strike in the Board with effect from 19-5-82, which lasted upto 15-7-82. 4. Shri Shiv Charan Mathur, the Chief Minister of Rajasthan intervened and issued the following appeal: HINDI MATTER 373452 A 5. In pursuance of the above, the strike was called off. The petitioners' case is that the employees wanted to resume duty and when they reported to duty, they were not allowed to join. According to the petitioners, about 5,000 employees were on strike. 6. In pursuance of the above, the strike was called off. The petitioners' case is that the employees wanted to resume duty and when they reported to duty, they were not allowed to join. According to the petitioners, about 5,000 employees were on strike. 6. It would not be necessary to narrate in details the facts preceding and succeeding the strike except that the impugned Circular dated 3-9-82, which is in fumes and fire in these writ petitions was issued by the Secretary Shri C.R. Mehta of the Board, for the purposes of regulating the action to be taken for those strike employees who were involved in Indian Penal Code cases. It appears that earlier a letter was issued by which a blanket prohibition was made against taking on duty all those employees who were involved in Indian Penal Code cases. However, by this letter, the Board wanted to review and revise the earlier orders of blanket prohibition and permitted the employees to be taken on work in those cases where they have not remained in Jail for 48 hours or more. It would be pertinent and relevant to mention by reproducing Annexure-1 letter dated 3-9-82, as the entire ccntroversy centres around it: "SECRET URGENT BY SPECIAL MESSENGER. RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD No. RSEB/PAS/D. 108 Jaipur, September 3, 1982 The Chief Engineer The Addl. Chief Engineer The Dy. Chief Engineer The Superintending Engineer The F. A. & C. O. A./CIA, Rajasthan State Electricity Board. Sub:-RSEB Strike--Employees involved in Indian Penal Code cases. A directive had been earlier issued that employees who took part in the recent strike, and were also involved in Indian Penal Code cases for acts committed by them in furtherance of the strike, were not to be taken on duty. The matter has been rcconsidered and it has now been decided that the following action may be taken in relation to persons affected by the decision mentioned above: 1. All such employees who had participated in the strike, and had got involved in Indian Penal Code cases during the period of strike for acts committed in furtherance of the illegal strike, and, who were not subsequently taken on duty, may now be allowed to resume duty with immediate effect. However, employees who have already been convicted for any offence will not be allowed to resume duty. 2. However, employees who have already been convicted for any offence will not be allowed to resume duty. 2. Lists of such employees, clearly indicating Name, Father's name, post held and, place of posting along with the details of the Indian Penal Code cases registered against them, should be prepared immediately. Information regarding the date of arrest, the period for which the persons remained in custody, and the date of resuming duty should also be incorporated in the lists. These lists are to be prepared forth-with and should be made available to the Board (by name to the undersigned) within 3 days of receipt of this letter. 3. The above said employees, who are allowed to resume duty in pursuance of this directive, are to be treated as Awaiting Posting Orders'. The concerned competent authority will further issue orders, posting these employees outside the Circle where they were originally posted. It is expected that these orders will be issued within 7 days of the issue of this directive. 4. Such of the employees, referred to above, who resume duty in pursuance of this directive, but who remained in custody for a period of 48 hours or more should be placed under suspension with immediate effect. 5. While furnishing details of Indian Penal Code cases as required vide para (2) above, the Unit Officers are further required to give brief details of the incident leading to the registration of the Indian Penal Code cases in order to assess the gravity of the offence committed by the concerned employees. 6. In case there are Indian Penal Code pending against category of employees enumerated above, and, where arrests have not been yet effected by the Police, the details of such cases may also be submitted separately. 7. Further instructions regarding departmental action/criminal proceedings against the employees who are permitted to resume duty under this directive, will be issued soon after the receipt of detailed lists as required vide para (2) above. The above instructions are quite camprehensive and it is expected that information relating to all the employees who have not yet been taken on duty, due to the earlier directive regarding employees involved in Indian Penal Code cases, will now be made available within 3 days of receipt of this letter. The above instructions are quite camprehensive and it is expected that information relating to all the employees who have not yet been taken on duty, due to the earlier directive regarding employees involved in Indian Penal Code cases, will now be made available within 3 days of receipt of this letter. The concerned C.E. will ensure compliance of these instructions personally and arrange to inform the Board of the final position, within the stipulated period. Receipt of this letter may please be acknowledged. Sd. C.E. Mehta SECRETARY." 7. This letter has been challenged by all the three petitioners who claim that they represent most of the employees on various grounds. Mr. M.R.Calla and Mr. Shyam Arya, who argued the case on behalf of the petitioners, have made the following submissions: 1. That the services of the employees are to be regulated by the Service Rules and Regulations in the form of Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1962 and Employees Conduct Regulations and Technical Workmen Service Regulations, 1975. It was pointed out that whether it is a case of suspension or termination or enquiry, the Board cannot by an executive fiat sack the employees on any ground whatsoever. 2. It was pointed out that detailed procedure has been provided in the rules and regulations, mentioned above, for disciplinary action by the authorities, and the Board cannot intervene and order mass sacking of the employees or mass transfers, as was contemplated to be done by the above order. 3. Allegations of mala fides and victimisation were also made and it was argued that the Circular is nothing but an attempt to strifel the trade union movement by means of unfair labour practice. 4. Arguments were also advanced that under Article 19, the petitioners have got an unfattered right to strike and further to do trade union activities for their genuine demands, and the respondents cannot by such methods and practices victimise the employees. 8. Both the learned counsel placed reliance upon the appeal of Shri Shiv Charan Mathur, Chief Minister, in which it was expressly mentioned that he assures all the employees of the Board in Rajasthan that if they return to duty, no action would be taken in revengeful spirit. 8. Both the learned counsel placed reliance upon the appeal of Shri Shiv Charan Mathur, Chief Minister, in which it was expressly mentioned that he assures all the employees of the Board in Rajasthan that if they return to duty, no action would be taken in revengeful spirit. The learned counsel submitted that the assurance which was given by the top Statement, and the Chief Minister of the State, which has been violated and the Board has acted with revengeful spirit in transferring petty low paid employees at distances of thousands of miles, where they would be required to face the trial after coming on every hearing and their families will be uprooted in the middle of session. The learned counsel submitted that such type of mass sacking of employees and mass transfers cannot be anything else but a planned action of victimisation and revengeful action to teach lesson, so that they may not indulge in trade union activities any more. 9. Both the learned counsel prayed that the Circular dated 3-9-82 should be quashed more so because it interferes with the discretion of the Disciplinary authorities and administrative heads at different district places in the matter of disciplinary proceedings or termination or transfers. 10. The Board was represented by Mr. H.P. Gupta and Mr. Sharma. Both the learned counsel refuted the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. According to them, the employees who are involved in Indian Penal Code cases are a class in themselves. They have indulged in serious acts of violance in the shape of intimidation, mal-handling of the officers and employees, dislocation of wires, poles and other various offences, which not only brought the Electricity Board work to a stand still, but the entire civil life of Rajasthan, both Government and semi-Government, both in private or public sector was paralysed for a long period of about 57 days. The learned counsel submitted that though quite a number of employees consisting of thousands were on strike, but no action has been taken against them, as the Management never wants to be revengeful. However, it was pointed out that it is the solemn duty to maintain discipline and ensure smooth working of the department. Mr. The learned counsel submitted that though quite a number of employees consisting of thousands were on strike, but no action has been taken against them, as the Management never wants to be revengeful. However, it was pointed out that it is the solemn duty to maintain discipline and ensure smooth working of the department. Mr. Gupta pointed out that several employees who were not on strike have made representations that those employees who are involved in Indian Penal Code cases are threatening the loyal workers and it would result in serious danger to their life and liberty, and some of them have sought transfers by apprehended action of these employees. Mr. Gupta also pointed out that in the circumstances where the employees are involved in penal offences, it is not possible to permit them to work at the same places, because it will create tension and there cannot he any smooth working on account of the tension created by such persons. Mr. Gupta submitted a chart of cases in which these employees are involved and the offences range from Section 147 to 427 Indian Penal Code. Mr. Gupta submitted that the employees have got no right to stay at a particular place and transfer is an administrative exigency against which no legal right can be claimed. Similarly, Mr. Gupta submitted that so far as the employees who remained in custody for 48 hours or more are concerned, there is specific provision in the rules by which they are deemed to be suspended automatically. 11. In the matter of transfers, Mr. Gupta and Mr. Sharma submitted that instead of leaving the matter to the sweet discretion of district officers, the Board thought it proper to provide guide lines in the interest of employees and, therefore, it is a moderate and unifrom programme/plan by which all the district officers have been provided guide lines. 12. Both the learned counsel vehemently opposed and refuted the allegations of victimisation and mala fides and their submission is that the Electricity Board has not violated the appeal of the Chief Minister. 13. Mr. Gupta clarified the letter dated 3-9-82, and submitted that if it cannot amount to clarification, then it should be taken as an amendment. 12. Both the learned counsel vehemently opposed and refuted the allegations of victimisation and mala fides and their submission is that the Electricity Board has not violated the appeal of the Chief Minister. 13. Mr. Gupta clarified the letter dated 3-9-82, and submitted that if it cannot amount to clarification, then it should be taken as an amendment. He said that it was never intended that those employees against whom punishments have been given in penal offences would be sacked without following the procedure prescribed in the rules and regulations mentioned above. It was clarified that the procedure mentioned in the above rules and regulations will be followed and whatever is contemplated, by giving show cause notice or enquiry, depending on each case. the individual employee shall be treated according to those rules. In substance, Mr. Gupta submitted that whatever may be mentioned in that Circular, no loyal employee would be stopped from resuming duty, unless appropriate procedure is adopted for termination of their services or holding an enquiry or show cause notice, as the case may be. 14. In respect of mass transfers. Mr. Gupta on a suggestion of the Court submisted that he has got instructions to make the following statement in the Court in order to amend the letter dated 3-9-82. "The cases of such employees who have been involved in Indian Penal Code cases and who have been transferred on that account to circles other than adjoining circles in pursuance of the letter dated 3-9-82 would be reviewed by the Chief Engineer and those employees would be adjusted in the adjoining circles." 15. Mr. Calla and Mr. Arya not satisfied with the above statement made under instructions from the Board, argued that the low paid employees who have been transferred from one place to the other distant place should be adjusted in the nearest Sub-Division, if at all it becomes necessary to transfer them, because they will be required to attend the hearing of criminal cases frequently a number of times in a month, in addition to other inconveniences which would be caused to them. They also requested that this Court should direct payment of wages for the period the employees wanted to resume their duty but not allowed to join vide the Circular dated 3-9-82. They also requested that this Court should direct payment of wages for the period the employees wanted to resume their duty but not allowed to join vide the Circular dated 3-9-82. They also prayed that the question whether any disciplinary action should be taken and whether their transfer is necessary should be left to the discretion of the officers concerned depending on the facts and circumstances of each case should also be clarified. 16. Mr. Gupta also raised an objection that the writ petitions have been filed either in the capacity of representatives of the workers or as Secretary, and as such they should not be entertained, because this Court has consistently followed the practice that individual person who is affected adversely by an order only can come to this Court and no two persons can join together on similar cause of action. 17. I have carefully considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have given a very thoughtful consideration to the principal issues involved in this litigation. In view of the fact that during the arguments of the case, there was concensus between the learned counsel for the parties on some of the issues which are major in the case, and only a minor difference remains to he sorted out. I do not propose to enter into the controversy by narrating the entire history of the case and decide each issue at length. I am also of the view that in order to maintain cordial relations between the labour and the management, it is necessary that both sides should be brought together as far as possible in a spirit of conciliation, rather than treating them as rival parties, which can pitch to have legal battles. 18. It was in this spirit that I made various suggestions from time to time to both the parties, some of which have been accepted and for some the management had its own handicap and difficulties in not being able to persuade themselves and accept the same. 19. So far as the question of maintainability of the writ petitions is concerned. It was in this spirit that I made various suggestions from time to time to both the parties, some of which have been accepted and for some the management had its own handicap and difficulties in not being able to persuade themselves and accept the same. 19. So far as the question of maintainability of the writ petitions is concerned. I would not like to enter into a detailed discussion, because the latest decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the latest being People's Union for Democratic Rights and others v. Union of India and others 1982 LIC 1646= AIR 1982 SC 1473 , has opened wide horizon, and new dimensions wherein Anglo Saxon jurisprudence of adverse litigation has been held only one part of the present litigation where public interest litigation has assumed much more importance in the context of social justice for social welfare State like India. Even earlier to it, in S. P. Gupta v. V. M. Tarkunde, J. L. Kalra and others, AIR 1982 SC 149 , and Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India and others, AIR 1981 SC 298 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court had already widened the locus standi concept and held that the earlier traditional concept of aggrieved party and individual rights now have become obsolete and outdated in the context of social justice. 20. Confronted with the above new horizons of Apex Court, Shri Gupta, did not concede to the right of petitioners to make legal protest against "Mass sacking and mass transfer operational Surgery" of about 1200 employees due to the traditional adversary litigation Ango-Sexon legacy, but did realise that, the "sermons of jurists, moralists, politicians and preachers of yesterday for opening courts for poor and making it classless, a preaching which was punished by the Apex Court in R. M. Sankaran Namboodripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar 1970 (2) SCC 325 , has come out to be partly true for self introspection and there is not much difference except of terminology and emphasis, political overtones and juristic phraseology, in what was said then, and what is realised by the Apex Court now, when it is observed: in People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India : "So for the courts have been used only for the purpose of vindicating the rights of the wealthy and the affluent. It is only these privileged classes which have been able to approach the courts for protecting their vested interests. It is only the moneyed who have so far had the golden key to unlock the doors of justice. But, now for the first time the portals of the court are being thrown open to the poor and the downtrodden, the ignorant and the illiterate and their cases are coming before the courts through public interest litigation which has been made possible by the recent judgement delivered by this Court in Judges' appointment and transfer cases (AIR 1982 SC p 149). Millions of persons belonging to the deprived and vulnerable sections of humanity are looking to the courts for improving their life conditions and making basic human rights meaningful for them. They have been crying for justice but their cries have so far been in the wilderness. They have been Buff ring injustice silently with the patience of a rock, without the strength even to shed any tears." (Para 3) "The time has now come when the courts must become the courts for the poor and struggling masses of the country. They must shed their character as upholders of the established order and the status quo. They must be sensitised to the need of doing justice to the large masses of people to whom justice has been denied by a cruel and heartless society for generations. The realisation must come to them that social justice is the signature tune of our Constitution, and it is their solemn duty under the Constitution to enforce the basic human rights of the poor and vulnerable sections of the community and actively help in the realisation of the constitutional goals. This new change has to come if the judicial system is to become an effective instrument of social justice, for without it, it cannot survive for long. (Para 3) 21. What Namoodripad said as indictment of judiciary, then, has been partially realised now by Bhagwati, J., though in judicial introspection, with restraints and constraints. 22. A comparison of the above underlined portions of Asiad, and the following charge of Namoodripad, is revealing, enlightening and worth study for research scholars. One can find astonishing similiarity which is heart rendering, judicial shocking and nerve rocking. "And there are limits to the sanctity of the judiciary. 22. A comparison of the above underlined portions of Asiad, and the following charge of Namoodripad, is revealing, enlightening and worth study for research scholars. One can find astonishing similiarity which is heart rendering, judicial shocking and nerve rocking. "And there are limits to the sanctity of the judiciary. The judiciary is weighted against workers, peasants and other sections of the working classes and the law and system of judiciary essentially serve the exploiting classes". (Excerpts from the book, 'Law, Morality & Politics', by the publishers-Unique Traders, Chaura Rasta Jaipur, at p. 178; 1970 (2) S.C.C. p. 325) Not that Bhagwati, J., has become Marxist, nor he is indulging in trade unionism when he gives Asiad judgement but he is only echoing what Hidayatullah. J., (as he then was) observed in Namoodripad's case (supra) in the following words : "Marx was neither first nor alone in this. Before him the Judeo-Christians demanded social justice. Other who preached social equality and denounced social injustice were the Utopian Socialists and the Christian Socialists. They had all pointed out inequalities of civilisation based on urban industrial development. We had thus Auguste Comte's Courts do philosophy positive, Feuerbach's History of New Philosophy and the writings of Hegel. Ibid, p. 181" 23. The respondent-Board did not give up the objection of 'locus standi' but could not carry it too far in the climate of Asiad judgement, extracted above. 24. I am, therefore, not inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Gupta and dismiss the writ petition on this ground, because I am of the opinion that the unions of the employees who have got a legal right to espouse the cause of the workmen, has got a legal right also to challenge the Circular dated 3-9-82, which is a circular of directions about mass sacking and mass transfers of the employees. 25. Now coming to the brass tusk of the matter. The Chief Minister's appeal undoubtedly assured the workmen that no action would be taken against them in revengeful spirit I may at the cost of repetition but with a view to lay emphasis reproduce the following: HINDI MATTER B 26. Mr. Khan appearing on behalf of the Government made it explicit that the Chief Minister wants to stick to every word which he has used in the appeal and there is no intention even the remotest to resile from it, on any pretext whatsoever. Mr. Khan appearing on behalf of the Government made it explicit that the Chief Minister wants to stick to every word which he has used in the appeal and there is no intention even the remotest to resile from it, on any pretext whatsoever. This explicit, clear and categorical statement of the learned Government Advocate under instructions from the State makes it clear that the Electricity Board to whom directions can be issued by the Government under Section 78-A of the Rajasthan Electricity Supply Act, is expected to act according to not only the language and the words. but the spirit in which the solemn assurance was given by none else than the Chief Minister of the State. It would not be worthwhile to enter into details and adjudicate whether such assurance can form the bedrock of the legal rights. I would assume in view of the statement of the Government Advocate and the stand taken by the parties, which is a stand of reconciliation, that all of them want to have reproachment and as far as possible the management of the Board is not at all anxious to either victimise the employees or to teach them a lesson for future. 27. This spirit is welcomed because all said and done, the directive principles of Indian Constitution now enshrined and included by 42 Amendment contemplates labour's participation in the management. If that spirit is adopted. the gulf between the labour and management, which once upon a time was to be a master any servant, exploiter and exploited has disappeared and should disappear, the sooner it is better. 28. In view of the above, without deciding the legal rights of the parties, with the explicit understanding of the parties to try to implement the order of this Court, unless it becomes necessary to challenge it, I have thought it proper to pass the following order: The letter dated 3-9-82 as it stands would govern the employees who are involved in Indian Penal Code cases with the following amendments: (1) Those employees who have been convicted for any offence will also be allowed to resume duty. But it would be open to the disciplinary authorities concerned to take appropriate action against them under the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1962 and Employees Conduct Regulations and Technical Workmen Service Regulations, 1975, whichever applies to them or any other regulations or rules, and it would be only after taking disciplinary action under the Rules that any adverse orders may be passed against them including the termination of services, if the facts and circumstances of the individual case so warrant. It is further made clear that in case the above regulations or other rules of the Electricity Board so permit, the concerned discipinary authority would be at liberty to put them under suspension keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. (2) The direction of issuing orders for posting the employees who are involved in Indian Penal Code cases outside the circle where they are originally posted will be subject to the condition that in those cases where directions have already been issued, the Chief Engineer of the Electricity Board would review and reconsider individual cases and re-transfer the employees in the adjoining circles, if they have been transferred to some distant circles. In doing so, it is further ordered that in cases of class III and class IV employees, the Chief Engineer would further accommodate them in the nearest Sub-Division so that they are not required to incur heavy expenditure in coming and going back for attending criminal cases. (3)While making the review, the Chief-Engineer of the Electricity Board would also consider the representation of each individual employee, if any, and where it is explicit and patent that Indian Penal Code cases are not subsisting now or have got no relation or relevance to the offence with respect to the property of the Board, or the officers or employees of the Board working as such, the above direction in circular for transfer as a consequence of that would not apply, and then would not be transferred. (4) So far as future transfers of those employees for whom no orders have been passed so far, even though they are involved in subsisting Indian Penal Code cases are concerned, the same principles would be followed, as mentioned above. (5) The process of review should be completed within a month from today. (4) So far as future transfers of those employees for whom no orders have been passed so far, even though they are involved in subsisting Indian Penal Code cases are concerned, the same principles would be followed, as mentioned above. (5) The process of review should be completed within a month from today. (6) Those employees who have remained in custody for 48 hours or more, would be liable to be treated on automatic suspension according to regulation no. 9 (2) as amended on 29-8-75. 29. Mr. Calla and Mr. Arya wanted that I should issue directions regarding the payment of wages from the date the employees wanted to join duty on account of calling off the strike but were not allowed to join, because of the earlier Circular dated 3-9-82. I am afraid, no such general order can be passed by this Court in these writ petitions. However, it is expected that the management would be libral and examine each case and where it is found that the employee was willing to join, but was deprived from joining the duty on account of the Circular, which has been amended in the above form now, appropriate relief may be given. 30. I have not given any direction for payment of wages from the date of calling off of the strike when the employees involved in Indian Penal Code cases wanted to join the duty. but they were not allowed to join the duty because of the earlier Circular, as the number of employees is about 1,000 and it is not possible with exactitute to determine the exact date in each case that they wanted to join and were unlawfully refused. Moreover, even though they are entitled to the wages of this period once it is held that earlier circular preventing them from joining the duty was not legal and, therefore, it has been superseded by the above directions, yet those employees who stood suspended automatically on account of remaining in custody for 48 hours or more cannot take the benefit of the above directions and, it is not possible to determine the individual cases in these writ petitions. 31. This should not mean that the management should deprive them of their just, legal benefits for which I have mentioned my expectations above. 31. This should not mean that the management should deprive them of their just, legal benefits for which I have mentioned my expectations above. I would only like to remind the management that after the inclusion of the labour's participation in the management under the directive principles of our Constitution, it is their solemn duty to act in that spirit. I would also like to remind the management of the solemn assurance of the Chief Minister, referred to above. It is the duty of the Board's management to see that the solemn assurance of the Chief Minister is followed, obeyed and implemented both in letter and spirit, and he is not let down on any technical or flimsy pretext, because the State Government is competent to issue directions legally also, and the assurance of the Chief Minister is not moral binding only but has got sanctity of law also. 32. The result of the above discussion is, that the writ petitions are partially accepted and the respondents are directed to implement the above directions for their employees, treating them to be in supersession of the letter dated 3-9-82. The impugned letter dated 3-9-82 is superseded and modified accordingly. 33. Since the writ petitions have been only partially accepted, and that too more on the basis of consensus and implied consent of both the parties, at the persuation and suggestion of the Court, the parties would bear their own costs. 34. A copy of this order may be sent to the State's Chief Minister for ensuring prompt action, in view of the fair stand taken by the Government Advocate, in respect of his earlier appeal dated 15-7-82 and the equally fair gesture of Mrs H.P. Gupta and C.N. Sharma, to accept all just and fair directions of the Court and to avoid legal quibbles.Petition partly accepted. *******