JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have, filed this writ petition challenging Annex. 7 reducing the petitioner's salary and ordering recovery and pray that the same may be declared invalid and quashed. It has been prayed that para 5 of the document Annex. 5 and Clarification dated 19.1.1993 may also be struck down. 2. Reply to the writ petition has been filed stating that Circular dated 19.1.1993 though a fresh one but clarification of the earlier circular dated 2.6.1989 and one can be considered who are appointed' prior to 1.1.1988 and the petitioners and been appointed admittedly in the Corporation being ex-serviceman on various dates in the year 1991 and they are not entitled for any relief. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not disputed merit of the case but submits that the respondents are not entitled to recover the amount as has been held by their Lordships in Shyam Babu Verma & Ors. v. Union of India [ 1994(2) SCC 521 ] and Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana [1995 SCC (L&S) 248]. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submits that their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a recent direct decision rendered in D.K. Udayashankaran & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [JT 1995(4) SC 420] whereby the validity of impugned circular has been up-held and has held that High Court has rightly directed that recovery of excess amount so paid should be made in reasonable instalments, so that undue hardship is not caused to them. Therefore, the controversy has already been set at rest. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. In view of the decision rendered in D.K. Udayshankaran's case (supra) which directly clinches the issue involved in this writ petition, and merit part has not been disputed, therefore no relief can be granted to the petitioners. However. the petitioners are in service and they will be free to move before the concerned authority fixing reasonable instalments for recovery of excess amount paid to them, who will consider the same accordingly. The decisions cited by the counsel for the petitioners are not of any help in the facts and circumstances of the given case. Reference may be made to the decision report in 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 600B. Under the circumstances, no interference is called for. 7. The decisions cited by the counsel for the petitioners are not of any help in the facts and circumstances of the given case. Reference may be made to the decision report in 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 600B. Under the circumstances, no interference is called for. 7. With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. The interim order dated 3.8.1993 stands vacated.Writ Petition dismissed. *******