A. K. Patnaik, J.- The petitioner in Civil Rule No.43 of 1987 is the President of Tripura Mahakaran Karmachari Samity which is an Association looking after the welfare of the employees serving under the Govt of Tripura. The petitioner No. 1 in Civil Rule No.44 of 1987 is Tripura Shramik Sikshak Karmachari Samity, an Association of employees working under the Govt of Tripura and other authorities and aided institutions in the State of Tripura and the petitioner No.2 in the said civil rule is the General Secretary of the said Association. 2. In these applications under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for, inter alia, a writ of Mandamus on the State Govt of Tripura to pay the entire amount of Rs.112 crores to the State Govt employees as Dearness Allowance and Additional Dearness Allowance (hereinafter referred to as DA and ADA respectively) to neutralise the 120 points from 400 to 520 points rise in the All India Consumer Price Index and for a writ of Prohibition restraining the State Govt of Tripura from diverting the aforesaid amount of Rs.112 crores for any other purpose. 3. The relevant facts briefly are that on the recommendation of the First Tripura Pay Commission, the pay scales of the employees working under the Govt of Tripura were revised with effect from 1.3.74 and the said revised pay scales were linked to 220 point of Labour Bureau's Consumers Price Index (Tripura Base 1961=100) which was treated as Local Price Index. Thereafter, the Second Pay Commission was set up by the State of Tripura in the year 1979 and the said Commission submitted its report in December, 1981. The Govt accepted the scales of pay recommended by the said Pay Commission and framed the Tripura Govt Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1982, which came into force with effect from 1st January, 1982. Thereafter, by a memorandum dated 23rd December, 1982, of the Govt of Tripura, Finance Department DA/ADA at central rates to all categories of employees of the Govt of Tripura for all instalments sanctioned by the Govt of India upto 1.12.81 was granted subject to certain conditions. Subsequently, by another memorandum dated 9th April, 1984 of the Govt of Tripura in the Finance Department, the State Govt employees were granted DA/ADA with effect from 1.3.84 provisionally pending final recommendations of the Eighth Finance Commission. Subsequently, by another memorandum dated 9th April, 1984 of the Govt of Tripura in the Finance Department, the State Govt employees were granted DA/ADA with effect from 1.3.84 provisionally pending final recommendations of the Eighth Finance Commission. In the said memorandum dated 9th April, 1984, it was stated that the DA/ADA would be subject to review/adjustment on the basis of the recommendations of the Eighth Finance Commission in regard to (a) benefits derived from revised pay scales, and (b) DA/ADA granted under the memorandum. The Eighth Finance Commission constituted by the President of India under Article 280 of the Constitution submitted its interim and final reports. In the interim report, the Eighth Finance Commission made provisions in the forecasts of different States including Tripura for all the instalments of ADA which had been sanctioned by the Centre upto index number 496 in the All India Consumer Price Index for industrial workers (Base 1960=100) and for such purpose recommended an amount of Rs.53.34 crores to be granted as grant-in-aid to the State of Tripura for the financial year 1984-85 as the revenue deficit assessed by it. In its final report, the Eighth Finance Commission made provisions for emoluments of Govt employees of different States including Tripura during the five years ending 1988-89 which were in addition to the normal requirements projected during the forecast period and so far as the State of Tripura was concerned, the additional provisions made by the said Commission for emoluments for five years fo the forecast period 1985-85 to 1988-89 as given in Table : 1 at page 24 of the report were to the following effect: Name of the For DA upto To make up the Total For DA Consequent Total State 12 monthly difference with (2=3) on increase in the 12 4+5 CPI average reference to the monthly average CPI of 440 as oh presumptive from 440 to 496 1.4.1982 emoluments on 1.4.82 adjusted to CPI 440 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 20 Tripura 3700 2796 6496 5180 11676 In its said final report, the Eighth Finance Commission also recommended grants to cover increases in revenue gaps on account of additional provisions for DA which covered the 12 monthly average of All India Consumer Price Index Number for industrial workers (Base 1960=100) upto 520, and so far as the State of Tripura was concerned, a total grant of Rs.23.95 crores was recommended by the Commission for the aforesaid purpose for the period 1984-89. The case of the petitioners in these two writ petitions is that although on the basis of the said recommendations made by the said Eighth Finance Commission, an amount of Rs.112 crores was paid by the Central Govt to the State of Govt of Tripura, the State Govt of Tripura has not disbursed the same to its employees and that a Mandamus should be issued to the State Govt of Tripura to disburse the said amount of Rs. 112 crores received by it from the Central Govt as DA/ADA for the purpose of neutralising the rise in the cost of living from 400 points to 520 points for the priod ef five years from 1.4.84 to 31.3.89. 4. At the hearing, Mr. 112 crores received by it from the Central Govt as DA/ADA for the purpose of neutralising the rise in the cost of living from 400 points to 520 points for the priod ef five years from 1.4.84 to 31.3.89. 4. At the hearing, Mr. Dhiresh Chandra Dutta, the petitioner in Civil Rule No.43 of 1987, appearing in person contended that the Chief Minister of State of Tripura in his Budget Speech for the year 1984-85 delivered on 16th March, 1984 himself referred to the interim report of the Eighth Finance Commission relating to the instalments of ADA which had been sanctioned by the Central Govt for its employees upto index number 496 in the All India Consumer Price Index for industrial workers (Base 1960=100), but added that the Govt did not knwo then as to what view had been finally taken by the said Eighth Finance Commission in the matter and assured that the State Govt was always concerned about the welfare of its employees and was considering the matter symphathetically. Mr. Dutta similarly submitted that in memorandum dated 9th April, 1984 by which DA/ ADA was granted by the State Govt to its employees it was clearly stated that DA/ADA were provisional pending final recommendations of the Eighth Finance Commission. He submitted that despite the aforesaid assurance given by the Chief Minister on the floor of Tripura Assembly in his Budget Speech and given by the State Govt in the memorandum dated 9th April, 1984, no orders were passed by the State Govt for payment of DA/ADA to its employees on the basis of the recommendations of the said Eighth Finance Commission after the final report of the Commission. Mr. Dutta referred to the relevant portions of the final report of the Eighth Finance Commission wherein it has expressed its genral agreement with the approach of the Sixth and Seventh Finance Commissions which took into account not only the capacity of the States to pay emoluments to Govt employees, but also the needs of such Govt employees. In particular, Mr, Dutta referred to paragraphs 3.60,3.61 and 3.62 of the final report of the Eighth Finance Commi­ssion to show that for the three States of Assam, Meghalaya and Tripura, the Commission had made provisions for DA on the central pattern. Mr. In particular, Mr, Dutta referred to paragraphs 3.60,3.61 and 3.62 of the final report of the Eighth Finance Commi­ssion to show that for the three States of Assam, Meghalaya and Tripura, the Commission had made provisions for DA on the central pattern. Mr. Dutta vehemently argued that DA/ADA at the rates which would neutralize the rise in the cost of living adequately is not only necessary for taking care of the needs of the employees but is also absolutely essential for the efficiency of administration. Mr. Dutta referred to paragraph 2.2 of the report of the Eighth Finance Commission in which it had been observed that some States were relatively more advanced while others were lagging behind and the overriding consideration which had guided the Commission, was the national interest taken as a whole. He contended that the recommendations of the Eighth Finance Commission including those relating to DA/ADA of the employees of the State Govts therefore were in the national interest as a whole. He argued that the State Govt cannot refuse to grant DA/ ADA increases on the ground that if had adequately revised the pay of the employees because the said recommendations of the Eighth Finance Commission were specifically for DA/ADA. Mr. Dutta further submitted that the amount as received by the State Govt from the Central Govt on the basis of the report of the Eighth Finance Commission was appropriated specifically for the purpose of payment of DA/ADA to the employees of the State Govt and that the State Govt cannot be allowed to divert the said amount appropriated for a specific purpose for general expenditure. Mr. Dutta cited several decisions of the Apex Court in support of his submissions, but the decisions which are on DA/ADA are : State of MP vs. GC Mandawar, AIR 1954 SC 493 ; Hindustan Times Ltd, New Delhi vs. Their Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1332 ; Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd vs. Its Workmen & another, AIR 1969 SC 360 and Raja Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills Ltd vs. Girni Kamgar Sangathan, Poona, AIR 1981 SC 409 . 5. Mr. AL Saha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Civil Rule No.44 of 1987, while adopting the arguments advanced by Mr. 5. Mr. AL Saha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Civil Rule No.44 of 1987, while adopting the arguments advanced by Mr. Dutta, submitted that it has been held by Learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Tripura Govt Employees' Federation vs. State of Tripura & others, 1996 (II) GLT 555, that once the recommendation of the Commission relating to DA is accepted by the Govt, the Govt cannot take a stand that no right accrued to the employees to get the recommended DA. He further argued relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of SR Jtommai vs. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918 , that federalism is one of the basis features of the Constitution of India. According to Mr. Sana, since the constitution of the Finance Commission and Us recommendations are part of the federal set up contemplated by the Constitution, the State Govt should respect the recommendations of the Finance Commission and the Court can also issue a direction to the State Govt to comply with the recommendations of the Finance Commission. He argued that since the recommendations of the Eighth Finance Commission relating to DA/ADA of the employees of the State Govt of Tripura have not been complied with by the State Govt, directions can be issued to the State Govt to comply with the said recomme­ndations and pay the said DA/ADA to the employees of the Govt of Tripura. 5A. In reply to the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Ashok Chakraborty, learned Advocate General, Trupura, cited the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of MP vs. GC Mandawar, AIR 1954 SC 493 in which it has been held that grant of DA at a particular rate under Rule 44 of the Fundamental Rules, is a matter of grace and not a matter of right and hence a claim against Govt for grant of such allowance at a particular rate is not justiciable and no Mandamus as such can be issued to the State Govt to compel the Govt to pay DA/ADA at any particular rate. He referred to the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition fi led on 22.9.94 by the State-respondents to the effect that during the period covered by the Eighth Finance Commission, the State Govt's expenditure on improvement of pay scales and DA was Rs.44,774.66 lakhs, i.e., Rs.50.08 crores more than the estimate inclusive of the amount specifically recommended by the said Commission. In support of these averments, Mr. Chakraborty referred to the statements in Annexure 7 to the said affidavit-in-opposition which gives the figures of budget estimates and estimates inclusive of the Eighth Finance Commission' Award for improvement of pay structure and grants for further DA. He submitted that the State Govt's expenditure on improvement of pay scales and DA of the employees working under the Govt of Tripura was therefore far in excess of the award of the Eighth Finance Commission. He relied on paragraph 3 of the affidavit-in-opposition of the State-respondents filed on 6.9.94 in reply to the rejoinder affidavit in which it has been stated that the recommendations of the Finance Commission were fully complied with. He further explained that the entire amount as recommended by the Finance Commission was not received at a time but received in different stages. He finally submitted that the budget for the State Govt of Tripura is normally a deficit budget and the deficit amount is obtained from financial institutions with high rates of interest and such being the financial predicament of the State Govt of Tripura, it is not possible on the part of the Govt to meet the additional demands of DA and ADA as made by the petitioners in these writ petitions. 6. The question that is to be decided in this case is as to whether a Mandamus can be issued on the State of Tripura to pay the amount of Rs.112 crores to the State Govt employees as DA/ADA. Law is well settled that a Mandamus can only be issued to an authority for performance of his legal duty and if s person can show that he has a legal right in him, a corresponding legal duty of the authority towards the person can be enforced by the Court by a writ of Mandamus. The employees of the Govt of Tripuraon whose behalf the present writ applications have been filed, therefore, must show that they had a legal right to receive the amount of Rs. The employees of the Govt of Tripuraon whose behalf the present writ applications have been filed, therefore, must show that they had a legal right to receive the amount of Rs. 112 crores as DA/ADA for the Court to issue a Mandamus to the State Govt of Tripura to pay the said amount of Rs.112 crores to its employees. This position of law has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case-of State of MP vs. GC Mandawar (supra): "Under this provision, it is a matter of discretion with the local Govt whether it will grant dearness allowance and if so, how much. That being so, the prayer for 'Mandamus' is clearly misconceived, as that could be granted only when there is in the applicant a right to compel the performance of some duty cast on the opponent. Rule 44 of the Fundamental Rules confers right on the Govt servants to the grant of dearness allowance; it impose no duty on the State to grant it. It merely confers a power on the State to grant compassionate allowance at this own discretion, and no 'Mandamus' can issue to compel the exercise of such a power. Nor, indeed, could any other writ or direction be issued in respect of it, as there is no right in the applicant which is capable of being protected or enforced." In the aforesaid decisions, the Supreme Court further held that Rule 44 of the Fundamental Rules did not confer any right on the Govt servants to the grant of DA nor did it impose any duty on the State to grant it. Since Rule 44 of the Fundamental Rules is also applicable to the Govt servants in the State of Tripura, it follows that no right to DA/ADA as claimed on behalf of the employees of the Govt of Tripura can be based on the said Rule 44 of the Fundamental Rules nor can any duty on the State Govt of Tripura to grant the same to its employees be founded on the said rule. 7. 7. In the case of Tripura Govt Employees Federation vs. State of Tripura, (supra), however, it has been held by a learned Single Judge of this Court that when a recommendation was made by a Pay Commission for payment of DA and the said recommendation was accepted by the State Govt, it could be very well said that by declaration of its acceptance of the recommendation, the Govt induced a reasonable belief to the employees that they would be getting DA at central rates and that assurance was nothing, short of a promise by conduct and hence rules of estoppel, bound the Govt. In the said decision, therefore, the right of the employees to receive the DA at the central rates and corresponding duty of the Govt to pay the same were based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. By the said doctrine of promissory estoppel, if a representation or promise is held out by an authority in favour of any person, and such person has acted upon such promise or representation, the Court can compel the authority to perform its duty, under the said representation or promise if it fails to do so. We have, therefore, to find out as to whether the State Govt of Tripura held out any such assurance or promise or representation to its employees to pay the DA/ADA as recommended by the Eighth Finance Commission claimed by the petitioners in these cases. According to the petitioners, such assurance was given on behalf of the Govt of Tripura in the memorandum dated 9th April, 1984 of the Govt of Tripura in the Finance Department by which the employees were granted DA/ADA with effect from 1.3.84 provisionally pending final recommendations of the Eighth Finance Commission. According to the petitioners, such assurance was given on behalf of the Govt of Tripura in the memorandum dated 9th April, 1984 of the Govt of Tripura in the Finance Department by which the employees were granted DA/ADA with effect from 1.3.84 provisionally pending final recommendations of the Eighth Finance Commission. The relevant paragraph of the said memorandum dated 9th April, 1984, which is said to contain the said assurance, is quoted hereunder : "...However, subject to what has been stated above, the Governor is pleased to sanction from 1st March, 1984 Dearness Allowance/Additional Dearness Allowance at the rates shown in the Annexure B provisionally, pending final recommendations of the Eighth Finance Commission and subject to review/ adjustment on the basis of the same in regard to (a) benefits derived from revised pay scales and (b) Dearness Allowance/Additional Dearness Allowance granted under this memorandum..." Thus, grant of DA/ADA with effect from 1.3.84 to the employees of the Govt of Tripura under the memorandum dated 9.4.84 was a provisional grant pending final recommendations of the Eighth Finance Commission, and this would normally imply that after the final recommendations of the Eighth Finance Commission, the DA/ADA would be paid on the basis of the said final recommendations of the Eighth Finance Commission. But the above-quoted paragraph of memorandum dated 9.4.84 would show that after the final recommendations of the Eighth Finance Commission, review/adjustment was to be made in regard to (a) benefits derived from revised pay scales and (b) DA/ADA granted under the said memorandum. Thus no clear or unambiguous representation or assurance was held out in the aforesaid memorandum dated 9.4.84 that DA/ADA would be given to the employees of the Govt of Tripura as finally recommended by the Eighth Finance Commission and instead a condition was attached to the said representation or promise or assurance that the benefits derived from revised pay scale and DA/ ADA already paid to the Govt employees under the memorandum dated 9.4.84 would be reviewed/adjusted on the basis of the recommendations of the Eighth Finance Commission. According to the petitioners, an assurance or promise or representation to pay DA/ADA to the employees of the Govt of Tripura on the final recommendations of the Eighth Finance Commission was also held out by the Chief Minister in his Budget Speech for the financial year 1984-85 on 16.3.84, a copy of which was produced before us a the hearing. Paragraph 18.4.of the said Budget Speech of the Chief Minister. is extracted herein below : "18.4. If the revised pay scale are deemed to be linked to index number 336, the dearness allowance and additional dearness allowance already granted to the State Govt employees up to index number 440, as mentioned earlier, work out in most cases to be more than what would be admissible up to index number 496 on the basis of pay in revised pay scales. We had, however, pointed out to the Eighth Finance Commission that the entire dearness allowance and additional dearness allowance admissible upto index number 336 of the price index mentioned above were not allowed to be merged at the time of fixation of pay of the existing employees in the revised scales of pay. Thus while the new entrants at the time of revision had got the full benefit upto index number 336 from the revised pay scales, the existing employees did not get the same benefit. We do not know as yet what view has been taken finally by the Eighth Finance Commission in the matter. As the State Govt is always concerned about the welfare of its employees, it has, however, been considering the matter sympathetically..." On a reading of the aforesaid paragraph in the Budget Speech of the- Chief Minister, we find that he had only said that the Govt did not know then what view was taken finally by the Eighth Finance Commission in the matter relating to DA/ADA and that he had not given any clear and unambiguous assurance, promise or repre­sentation in the said speech that on the basis of the final recommendations of the Eighth Finance Commission, DA/ADA would be granted to the State Govt employees and all that he had assured was that the Govt would consider the matter sympathe­tically as it was concerned about the welfare of its employees. In Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edition (16) 1071 para 1595) quoted and relied on by the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2414 , it has been observed that "To found an estoppel a representaion must be clear and unambiguous", and the old maxim applicable to all estoppels is that they "must be certain to every intent..." Since no clear and unambiguous representation or promise or assurance has been held out by the State Govt of Tripura to its employees to pay the DA/ADA as finally recommended by the Eighth Finance Commission, the Court cannot on the doctrine of promissory estoppel compel the State Govt to pay the DA/ADA as finally recommended by the Eighth Finance Commission to its employees as claimed by the petitioners. 8. The petitioners have contended that the recommendations of the Eighth Finance Commissions have to be respected because federalism is a basic feature of the Constitution of India and that the provisions of the Constitution relating to Finance Commission and its recommendations are part of the federal set up of the 1 Constitution. On a reading of Article 280 of the Constitution and in particular clause (3) thereof, we find that the duty of the Finance Commission is to make recomme­ndations to the President as to the distribution between the Union and the States of the net proceeds of taxes which are to be, or may be, divided between them and the allocation between the State of the respective shares of such proceeds, and as to the principles which should govern the grants-in-aid of the revenue of the States out of Consolidated Fund of India. Thus, the role that the Finance Commission plays in the federal set up of the Constitutions with regard to the amount of resources in the shape of proceeds of taxes or grants-in-aid of the revenues of the States that should be allocated to the States. The provisions for DA/ADA at the central rates for the period 1984-85 to 1988-89 were therefore made by the Eighth Finance Commission in its interim and final report for the State of Tripura for the purpose of determining the resources which should be allocated to the State for meeting its revenue requirements towards the emoluments of the Govt employees. The provisions for DA/ADA at the central rates for the period 1984-85 to 1988-89 were therefore made by the Eighth Finance Commission in its interim and final report for the State of Tripura for the purpose of determining the resources which should be allocated to the State for meeting its revenue requirements towards the emoluments of the Govt employees. In the instant case, the State Govt has taken a stand in its affidavit-in-opposition sworn by the Finance Officer and Ex-officio Deputy Secretary to the Govt of Tripura that during the period covered by the Fight Finance Commission, the State Govt's expenditure on improvement of pay scales and DA of its employees was Rs.50.08 crores more than the estimate inclusive of the amount specifically recommended by the said Commission. In other words, according to the case of the State Govt, it had spent much more on pay scales and DA of its employees than what was granted to the State Govt on the recommendations of the Finance Commission. The petitioners' case, on the other hand, is that the recommendations of the Eighth Finance Commission relating to DA/ADA are separate from the recommendations on-improvement of pay scales and this Court should direct the State Govt to pay the DA/ADA to its employees as recommended by the Eighth Finance Commission. We are, however, of the view that improvement of pay scales and DA are inter-connected with each other inasmuch as DA/ADA is given to the employees only when the pay of the employees becomes inadequate compared to the rise in the cost of living and it is for the State Govt to decide as to what portion of the rise in the cost of living should be neutralized by improvement of pay scales and what portion of the rise in the cost of living is to be neutralized by granting DA/ADA. Since, in the instant case, the State Govt has taken a categorical stand on affidavit, as stated above, that the State Govt's expenditure on improve­ment of pay scales and DA was more than the estimate inclusive of the amount specifically recommended by the Eighth Finance Commission, it is difficult for this Court to direct that the amounts received by the State Govt on the basis of the recommendations of the Eighth Finance Commission relating to DA/ADA for the period 1984-85 to 1988-89 be paid to its employees as claimed in these writ application. 9. Mr. Dutta however contended that the amount of Rs. 112 crores as claimed by the petitioners in these cases was specifically appropriated by the Legislative Assembly of Tripura by Appropriation Acts. He has also produced before us the Tripura Appropriation Act, 1984 and also Vol II of the Detailed Estimates of the Budget of Govt of Tripura for the year 1984-85 in support of his aforesaid submi­ssion. We have looked into the Tripura Appropriation Act, 1984, as well as the said Vol n of the Detailed Estimates of the Budget for the year 1984-85, and from the said Act, 1984 and Vol II of the Detailed Estimates of the Budget for the year 1984-85, we are unable to determine as to what amount was specifically appropriated by the State Assembly but not paid as DA/ADA for the year 1984-85. The Tripura Appropriation Acts and the Detailed Estimate of Budget for the year 1985-86, 1986-87,1987-88 and 1988-89 - the remaining period for which relief is claimed in these writ applications - were however not produced before us by the petitioners. 10. Regarding the authorities cited by Mr. Dutta we find that in Hindustan Times Ltd, New Delhi vs. Their Workmen; The Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Ltd vs. Its Workmen & another and Raja Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills Ltd vs. Girin Kamgar Sanghthan, Poona, (supra), the Supreme Court did not decide any claim of the Govt servants to DA to any particular rate but examined some awards on DA in industrial disputes between the workmen and the Management under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the purpose of finding out if correct principles had been followed by the Tribunal while awarding DA/ADA to the workmen and where the Court found that the awards needed correction, issued appropriate writs/directions. The aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, therefore, have no relevance to the present case in which the petitioners have not shown their legal right to the DA/ADA claimed by them and have yet sought for a Mandamus on the State Govt to pay the same to them. 11. In the writ applications certain reliefs were claimed with regard to the amendment of 1986 to the Tripura. Govt Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 1982, and the memorandum dated 22nd September, 1986 and 23rd September, 1986 of the Finance Department, Govt of Tripura, but no submissions were made by the petitioners or their counsel at the time of hearing of the writ applications in support of the said reliefs claimed in the writ applications. 12. For the reasons stated above, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief and, accordingly, we dismiss these two writ applications. But considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.