JUDGMENT 1. - Above mentioned five writ petitions are based on same grounds, therefore, are disposed of by one single order. In all these writ petitions, it has been prayed that the respondents be directed to make pay me it of the salary and allowances etc., which have not been made to the petitioners, even though they are working as Class IV servants in the office of respondent No. 2. It is also prayed that damages to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- may be awarded to each petitioner. 2. It is submitted by Shri K.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, hat all the petitioners were appointed in the month of July, 1988 on post of Class IV servant in the regular pay scale. They were selected by a Committee, where they were found to be eligible for this appointment, copy of the order of appointment in each petition has been produced and marked as Anx. 1. It is further submitted that, even though the petitioners were appointed in regular pay scale but no salary was paid to them till filing of these petitions, except the salary for the month of September, 1988 was given to the petitioner-Anant Kumar and salary for the month of August, 1988 was given to petitioner-Gaurishanker. It is also submitted that the petitioners met their superior officers and prayed from time to time that salary may be paid to them and it is difficult for them to make their both ends meet in absence of salary, which remained unpaid for long time. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to be given damages for this call out attitude of the respondents in not paying salary to them for such a long time, which is violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that similar S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1452/89 (Ramesh Chand Bairwa v. State) , was decided by this Court vide order dated May 15, 1989, in which 12% interest on the amount of salary unpaid, which became due upto 1st April, 1989, was awarded to the petitioners. 3. It is submitted by Shri Parihar, learned Additional Government Advocate, that in the above-mentioned writ petitions, no reply has been filed, therefore, the clear facts could not be brought to the notice of this Court. 3. It is submitted by Shri Parihar, learned Additional Government Advocate, that in the above-mentioned writ petitions, no reply has been filed, therefore, the clear facts could not be brought to the notice of this Court. It is submitted that in the reply filed on behalf of the State, it has been clearly admitted that the petitioners are entitled to payment of their salary and their bills have been sent for clearance. As soon as the bills are cleared, the salary will be paid to the petitioners It is also submitted that delay in payment of salary to the petitioners came to be made on account of irregularity of the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Alwar who appointed the petitioners without obtaining No-Objection Certificate from the Collector, Alwar, on account of which, an enquiry came to be instituted. From the perusal of Anx. R/1, dated 5.4.89, it is clear that a request for NOC was submitted to the Collector on June 14, 1988, but the reply was sent late, i.e., on August 2, 1988. In the mean-time, the appointments of the petitioners were made. It is also submitted by learned counsel that the complete amount of full salary has been already paid to the petitioners, therefore, now nothing remains due, which may be payable to them on account of their salary, which remained unpaid at the time when the petition was filed. 4. It is evident that the petitioners, who belong to financially weak section of the Society, were not made payment of their salary on account of some irregularity that was committed by an officer of the respondent No. 1, with which they had no concern. The petitioners cannot be held to be liable for any casual or negligence attitude of any of the officers, who did not bother about the long delay regarding the payment of these poor persons. The work was taken from them, but the salary at the appropriate time was not given. This has to be deprecated. The salary was paid to the petitioners, after an interim order was passed by this Court on August 1, 1989. In this order, it was directed that the payment should be made within two weeks. The work was taken from them, but the salary at the appropriate time was not given. This has to be deprecated. The salary was paid to the petitioners, after an interim order was passed by this Court on August 1, 1989. In this order, it was directed that the payment should be made within two weeks. Since this was not done, a contempt petition was filed and after the show-cause notice was issued in the contempt petition, thereafter the payment of salary was made to the petitioners, I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the petitioners are entitled to get interest and, therefore, it is directed that the State Government shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum within four months of this order on the salary, which had fallen due upto April 1, 1989. The respondent No. 1 shall be at liberty to recover this amount of interest from such persons on account of whose commission or omission, late payment of salary was made to the petitioners. 5. The State Government may pass any order in the matter of continuation of services of the petitioners in accordance with law. 6. All the writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.Petitions disposed of. *******