JUDGMENT The order in this writ petition shall also decide connected petitioners; W.P. No. 846/97 Prem Nath Mishra v. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. and another and W.P. 832/97 Samykta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh and others v. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. and another. All the petitioners as employees under the respondent-South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. are aggrieved by their fitment in the regular scale of pay and claim pay protection. In W.P. 828/97, the petitioner has initially worked as Painter in the capacity of daily rated worker on permanent basis. Persuant to an advertisement for direct recruitment, he was selected and appointed as Typist-cum-Clerk Grade-II. In W.P. No. 846/97, the petitioner was working as Electrician on daily rated basis regularly. He also sought direct recruitment persuant to an advertisement to the post of Data Entry Operator. In W.P. 832/97, the eight petitioners' represented by their Union (Petitioner No. 1) were initially appointed as General Mazdoor on daily rated basis and they also sought direct recruitment to the post of Security Guard. Consequent upon their direct recruitment persuant to an advertisement and selection, the local authorities of the Management of S.E.C.L. Sohagpur Dist. Shahdol (M.P.) fixed them on the pay scale of the post of which they were directly recruited by fitting them in the concerned pay scale at a stage above their total emoluments in the earlier post and thus the pay protection was extended to them. They were accordingly allowed to draw salary on the basis of their fixation. Specifically, on a letter dated 2/6th September, 1996 (Annexure P-5) of the Deputy CPM (I.R.), the question of pay scale and pay protection was examined by the Head Office of S.E.C.L. Bilaspur. By impugned communication dated 25/26.9.1996 (Annexure P-6) the Head Office informed the local Management that the pay protection was available only to such employees who were regularised from daily rated basis to permanent basis in any post but such pay protection cannot be extended to daily rated employees who sought direct recruitment voluntarily to another post on permanent basis. Consequent to the above communication of the Head Office, the pay of the petitioner-employees was reduced from July, 1996. Consequent to the above communication of the Head Office, the pay of the petitioner-employees was reduced from July, 1996. Learned counsel Shri Arvind Shrivastava appearing for the employees and Union, in this petition, contends that there is no justification to discriminate, for the purpose of pay protection, employees who were regularised on administrative ground from daily/monthly rated jobs to regular jobs as well as Officers' similarly circumstanced and the employees like the petitioners' who sought direct recruitment from one post to another persuant to an advertisement and selection. The prayer made on behalf of the petitioners' is that this Court should direct that the pay of the petitioners be also protected in the pay scale for the post to which they were appointed. Shri Rajendra Menon, learned counsel appearing for the respondents (S.E.C.L.) in reply submits that the question of pay fixation and fitment into the new pay scales on direct recruitment of the petitioners' to the post advertised have to be considered on the basis of the terms or the settlement reached between the Management and the Employees. Reference is made to the terms of By-pertite settlement contained in Annexure R-1 and Annexure R-2. The relevant parts of the terms of the settlement read as under : "Consideration of S.P.R.A. in respect of PR workers for the purpose of pay fixation on regulation in DR/Monthly rated jobs : The issue was discussed and it was decided that as and when the piece-rated workers arc regularised in daily-rated/monthly rated jobs on administrative grounds. S.P.R.A. along with Group wages will be considered as basic for the purpose of their pay fixation in their regular post. However, in case any piece-rated workman applies on his own for daily-rated/monthly rated jobs for his personal convenience, the question of considering S.P.R.A. as basic wage for the purpose or pay fixation does not arise." NOTE: S.P.R.A. means Special Piece Rated Allowance. "In case of those piece-rated workers who had applied or have been converted into Time-rated against Selection/Voluntary option, the pay protection of their group wages or SPRA will not be taken into account." After hearing learned counsel for the parties in the opinion of this Court, the matter of fitment in the pay scale and pay protection cannot be decided on general principles of law without reference to the terms of the settlement reached between the employees and the Management. If there is any unfairness and discrimination in the matter of fitment into the pay scale and pay protection, it is open to the petitioners' through their Union to raise a separate Industrial dispute, if so advised. The above quoted portion of the terms of the settlement substantiate the stand taken on behalf of the management that where the employees working on daily rated or piece rated basis opt to seek direct recruitment to a post carrying a pay scale, they cannot have any pay protection and will have to be fitted in the new scale as new entrants. This Court, however, finds great force in the alternative submissions made on behalf of the petitioners' that they were given a particular fitment in the new pay scale and were granted pay protection by the local Management and were also allowed to draw pay on that basis. For no fault on their part, consequent upon the letter of the Head Office, their pay protection withdrawn and their pay was reduced. This Court by interim Orders directed the Management not to recover any alleged excess payment made to the petitioners' on the basis of earlier pay scales and pay protection granted to them. It would be unjust to recover any alleged excess payment from the petitioners' for which they cannot at all be put to any blame. In the circumstances, this petition partly succeeds. The petitioners' prayer for giving them pay protection is rejected but it is directed that the respondents shall not make any recovery of any alleged excess payment made to the petitioners' on the basis of their earlier pay fixation and grant of pay protection. The petition is accordingly disposed of but in the circumstances without any orders as to costs.