Judgment B.P.Singh and R.N.Prasad JJ. 1. We have heard Counsel for the parties at length and we are not persuaded to admit this writ petition. We are, therefore, disposing of the same at the admission stage itself for the following reasons. 2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a direction from this Court directing the respondents to grant to the petitioners the pay-scab of Class III employees and to absorb their services, consequent upon the winding up of respondent-Water Development Corporation, in the same scale. 3. According to the petitioners, they were appointed as Class IV employees and were working as Helpers in the Bihar Water Development Corporation. Under Annexure-1, the order dated 14-12-1975, petitioner No. 1 was directed by the Executive Engineer to discharge the duties of Muharrir in his own pay-scale. A similar order was passed by the Executive Engineer permitting petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 to discharge the duties as Technician and Compiling Clerk in their own scale of pay. Similarly, by an order dated 14-12-1977 (Annexure-3) the Executive Engineer permitted the Subdivisional Officer, Tubewell, to take work from petitioner No. 4 Muharrir (Revenue Clerk) in his own pay scale. It is apparent from the orders aforesaid that though the petitioners were permitted to work against posts in Class III scale, they were not allowed the pay-scale of Class III, but were allowed the pay-scale admissible to them as Class IV employees. It appears from Annexure-4 that the Executive Engineer by his order dated 16-5-19/9 directed that the petitioners and two others be given the pay-scale of Class III. The order itself mentions that in the absence of orders from the higher authorities, such an order was being made by him, since the persons concerned were discharging the duties of "higher post. The next document is Annexure-5, which is the letter of the Chief of Administration of the respondent Corporation addressed to the Executive Engineer. This letter dated 28-7-1979 notices the fact that despite the clear orders of the Corporation dated 21-6-1978 and 1-8-1978 placing a ban on promotion of employees, the Executive Engineer had passed orders contrary to the orders of the Corporation. He was, therefore, directed to immediately cancel those promotions with retrospective effect, and to intimate compliance to the Corporation. This letter dated 28-7-1979 notices the fact that despite the clear orders of the Corporation dated 21-6-1978 and 1-8-1978 placing a ban on promotion of employees, the Executive Engineer had passed orders contrary to the orders of the Corporation. He was, therefore, directed to immediately cancel those promotions with retrospective effect, and to intimate compliance to the Corporation. This order, which was made on 28-7-1979 clearly directed the Executive Engineer to cancel the promotion, as it was contrary to the clear direction contained in earlier orders of the Corporation. It, however, appears that some correspondence was exchanged between the Field Officers and headquarters of the Corporation as to whether the order of the Executive Engineer granting to the petitioners the higher pay-scale should be given effect. There is no order on record to show that the order of the Chief of Administration dated 28-7-1979 (Annexure-5) was ever withdrawn. 4. The last letters in this connection is addressed by the Chief Engineer to the Managing Director and is dated 23rd August, 1980. The instant writ petition was filed on 8-11-1988. It was stated before us that the respondent-Corporation is in the process of being (sic) wound up. It exists only technically with a view to rehabilitate 2500 workers on its rolls for whom alternative employment is to be provided. It is, therefore, obvious that the petitioners did not either challenge the earlier order of the Chief of Administration issued in the year 1979 nor did they approach this Court earlier, because the real reason for their approaching this Court at this stage is to seek benefit of being employed in a higher scale consequent upon winding up of the Corporation. There is, therefore, substance in the objection raised on behalf of the respondents that the writ petition has been filed after a considerable delay and that no relief should be granted to the petitioners. We, however, do not propose to dismiss the writ petition on that ground. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State. It has been stated that the petitioners were Class IV employees and they had never been promoted to Class III. Their claim for being absorbed against Class III posts in the Tubewell Division of the State of Bihar was, therefore, not justified. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State. It has been stated that the petitioners were Class IV employees and they had never been promoted to Class III. Their claim for being absorbed against Class III posts in the Tubewell Division of the State of Bihar was, therefore, not justified. It is further stated that the petitioners were never formally promoted to Class III posts and only as a matter of local arrangement made by the Field Officer concerned, they were required to discharge the duties of Revenue Clerks and ether Class III posts. It was made clear that they would be entitled to the pay-scale of Class IV only. Moreover, the order of the Executive Engineer granting them the benefit of higher pay-scale was unauthorised, since he was not competent to grant the higher pay-scale to the petitioners. Rightly, therefore, when the matter was brought to the notice of the Corporation, within two months the Chief of Administration directed the Executive Engineer to rescind his order allowing the petitioners the higher pay-scale of Class III. Pursuant to the order of the Chief of Administration the orders pertaining to sanction of higher pay-scale to five of its employees was cancelled. In the case of sixth employee, due to connivance and complicity of the officers, the order of the Chief of Administration was not given effect and he continued to receive salary in the higher scale as before. Thereafter, again the matter was thoroughly enquired into and the Government had to revert him back to his original Class IV post and recover from him the excess payment made to him. A copy of the Government order dated 20th September, 1989, has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit. The petitioners could, therefore, not contend that since the benefit was continued in the case of Sri Nivas Singh, the same benefit should be extended to them as well. 6. A counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondent-Corporation and its Managing Director. In the said counter-affidavit it has been stated that the Executive Engineer, who extended to the petitioners the benefit of higher pay-scale, was not at all authorised to do so. 6. A counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondent-Corporation and its Managing Director. In the said counter-affidavit it has been stated that the Executive Engineer, who extended to the petitioners the benefit of higher pay-scale, was not at all authorised to do so. He had no jurisdiction in relation to the posts against which the petitioners were initially appointed or the higher posts in Class III scale against which they were deputed to work and the benefit of pay-scale whereof was extended to the petitioners. It has further been stated that the Corporation vide its letters dated 14-5-1974, 21-6-1978 and 1-7-1978 had issued categoric directions specifically banning all types of appointment and promotion given by regional officers. The Executive Engineer without jurisdiction and contrary to clear directions of the Corporation purported to grant to the petitioners the benefit of higher pay-scale, which imposed upon the Corporation an additional burden and really amounted to a promotion. When this matter came to light immediate orders were issued by the Chief of Administration to rescind the order granting them the benefit of higher pay-scale. 7. Annexure-A is a letter issued by the Corporation dated 27/28-12-1978 addressed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, of the Corporation to Chief Engineers in regard to the various cadres in the Corporation. The cadres have been enumerated and their controlling officers have been designated. From this it appears that neither the post of the Helper nor the post of Muharrir to which the petitioners were promoted, fall within the control of the Executive Engineer. There was, therefore, no justification for the Executive Engineer to pass an order directing the petitioners to work against Class III posts and later to extend to them the benefit of the higher pay-scale. Moreover, by orders dated 1-7-1978 and 21-6-1978 to which references are made in Annexure-B, which was actually issued on 18-11-1980, the Corporation had placed a ban on all promotions to be made by the regional officers. The action of the Executive Engineer was clearly contrary to the directions of the Corporation, The Managing Director has also made it clear in Annexure-B that if unauthorised appointments and promotions are made, the persons who permitted such appointments or promotions to be made shall be proceeded against departmentally. 8. The action of the Executive Engineer was clearly contrary to the directions of the Corporation, The Managing Director has also made it clear in Annexure-B that if unauthorised appointments and promotions are made, the persons who permitted such appointments or promotions to be made shall be proceeded against departmentally. 8. It will, therefore, appear that despite orders of the Corporation, the Executive Engineer passed an order in favour of the petitioners extending to them the benefit of higher pay-scale that too in regard to the posts which were not under his control or jurisdiction. The action of the Executive Engineer was, therefore, high handed and without authority of law. As soon as the Chief of Administration of the Corporation came to know of it, he directed him to cancel that order. All this happened way back in the year 1979. 9. In these circumstances having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not persuaded to exercise our discretion under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, because that would virtually amount to perpetuating an illegality. It is indeed surprising that the orders of the Corporation were not obeyed by its regional officers. Irregular, illegal and unauthorised appointments and promotions have become chronic in this State. We can say from our judicial experience that despite clear directions of the Government or the governmental authorities, the officers (sic) persist in making illegal and unauthorised appointments, thereby causing a heavy burden on the public exchequer which can be avoided. A stage has been reached in the State where it has become difficult for the State to pay salaries and wages to duly appointed officers of the State. To add to that burden the additional burden of paying persons illegally appointed would not be fair, particularly when there are clear directions prohibiting such appointments. In the instant case, the Managing Director of the Corporation is directed to make a detailed enquiry into the matter and to take appropriate action against the Executive Engineer concerned who had issued the impugned order extending to the petitioners the benefit of higher pay-scale. 10. This writ petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.