JUDGMENT In our opinion, the petitioner cannot justly lay a claim for special pay. It appears that special pay is fixed by the corporation each year. It was two months' basic pay in the year 1981-82 vide Annexure R-1. It was 21/2 months basic pay for employees of Band C category for the year 1982-83 vide Annexure R-2. Similar is the case with respect to other different years. It appears from a perusal of different orders for grant of special pay, R-1 to R-4, that special pay is given by the Corporation to its employees as appreciation of good work. It is purely discretionary and does not form a precedent for the future and does not necessarily accrue to every employee as a matter of course of right. The petitioner, it may be noted, did not actually work during the three years in question i.e. in the years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85. No doubt, he was entitled to get all pay and allowances during this period by virtue of the order of this Court dated 28.1.1985 (Annexure-A). But special pay being exgratia payment and entirely discretionary could not be said to be "allowances" attached to the pay. Even in an employee had actually worked, and not merely deemed to have worked because of an order of the Court, he might not be given special pay by the Corporation. It was incentive for good work. It could not, therefore, be said that the Corporation was wrong if it refused to give special pay and rejected the petitioner's claim to it for the three years in question, vide letter, Annex. C. Before concluding, it will not be out of place to mention that the present writ petition was not properly constituted. No challenge was made to orders whereby the petitioner was superseded and others promoted on both the occasions. If that challenge were made, as it should have, it would have been further necessary to implead all those employees as respondents who shall be affected or displaced from their existing position if the petitioner's claim for promotion were allowed. In other words, it would have been necessary to implead all those employees who were junior to the petitioner but got promotions on the two occasions. In other words, it would have been necessary to implead all those employees who were junior to the petitioner but got promotions on the two occasions. A reference to paragraph 3 of this order would show that as many as six employees junior to the petitioner were promoted on the first occasion and an equal number of juniors were promoted on the second occasion. In a word, it would have necessary to implead at least 12 employees as respondents in this petition, which was not done. The defect of non-joinder of those employees could not be ingeniously got over by trying to confine the challenge, as appears to have been done in this case, to just information, Annexure F, from the Corporation to the petitioner that his claim for seniority had been rejected due to adverse remarks in his C.R. Such information, even if quashed, will not help the petitioner unless the orders of promotion were themselves challenged and quashed. Petition dismissed.