CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners in these petitions are all working as Assistant Accounts Officers in the respondent-Corporation. From the inception the posts of Assistant Accounts Officers/geologists/and Engineers carried the same pay scale. Thereafter, the respondent has amended the regulations governing the service conditions of the employees of the Corporation thereby the post of engineers is placed on a higher pay scale than the petitioners from 10-5-1988. This amendment was challenged by the petitioners and others in W. P. Nos. 7781 to 7918 of 1988 before this court. This Court dismissed the writ petitions upholding the validity of the amendment. However, this Court has directed the Corporation to constitute an Expert Committee for the purpose of providing equal pay for equal work assessing the comparable worth of engineering and nonengineering posts. ( 2 ) CONSEQUENT on this order, the respondent has constituted a committee consisting of three persons, viz. , Sriyuths (1) S. Venkatesh; (2) P. L. F. Alvares; and (3) G. S. Kanekal. Sri S. Venkatesh is the Chairman of the Committee who was a former Revenue Commissioner to the Government of Karnataka and earlier Secretary, PWD and was also a member of the Third Pay Commission, appointed by the Government of karnataka. Sri G. S. Kanekal, was a former Additional Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Finance Department. He was also associated with the Second Pay Commission appointed by the Government of Karnataka. Sri P. L. F. Alvares is a Retired District Judge and was a Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Retired Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Law and Parliamentary Affairs Department. The constitution of the Committee by the Corporation discloses that the above said three persons are experts in the field having knowledge regarding assessment of comparable worth of both engineering and non- engineering posts. ( 3 ) IN the meanwhile, some of the persons who are parties in the writ petitions referred to above preferred Writ Appeal Nos. 1506 to 1524 of 1988. These appeals were dismissed confirming the order of the learned Single Judge with an observation, that it is open for the petitioners to approach this Court to redress their grievance, in the event if they are affected by the consequential order that may be passed on the basis of the Expert Committee Report. 1506 to 1524 of 1988. These appeals were dismissed confirming the order of the learned Single Judge with an observation, that it is open for the petitioners to approach this Court to redress their grievance, in the event if they are affected by the consequential order that may be passed on the basis of the Expert Committee Report. Thereafter, the respondent Corporation had taken steps to recover the amount from the appellants in the above said writ appeals consequent on the revision of pay scale accepting the report of the Expert Committee. This step taken by the Corporation made the appellants in the above said writ appeals to file an application for an interim order. This Court dismissed the said application by its order dated 10th October, 1990. In the said order there is a reference to the report submitted by the Expert Committee. After this order the appellants in the said appeals preferred the special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in the first instance granted an interim order staying the recovery of money. Thereafter, after hearing the Corporation, dismissed the special leave petition by an order dated 27-8-1990 which reads as follows. "special Leave Petitions are dismissed on merits". ( 4 ) THE respondent has produced the copy of this Special Leave Petitions along with the statement of objections. From a reading of the said special leave petition, it is clear that the petitioners in the special leave petitions had specifically questioned the correctness of the report submitted by the Expert Committee, but the said contention was not accepted by the Supreme Court. ( 5 ) THE petitioners in these petitions though were not parties in the writ appeals and special leave petitions, have challenged the correctness of the report of the Expert Committee in this petition. Since the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions considering all contentions challenging the correctness of the report of the Expert Committee, it is not appropriate for this Court to go into the correctness of the said report in these petitions. Since the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions considering all contentions challenging the correctness of the report of the Expert Committee, it is not appropriate for this Court to go into the correctness of the said report in these petitions. ( 6 ) EVEN otherwise the Expert Committee having submitted the report considering all contentions raised by all the Unions and the workers, it is not appropriate for this Court to interfere with the said report since this Court is not exercising the appellate power in writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others v Jasmer Singh and Others, has held that the evaluation of jobs for the purpose of pay scale must be left to the expert bodies and unless there are any mala fides, its evaluation should be accepted. ( 7 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal and Others v Hari Narayan Bhowal and Others, has held that the Court should be reluctant to issue writ or direction to treat them equal, particularly when a body of experts has found them not to be equal. In view of the above said decisions and also in view of the fact that no mala fides have been alleged by the petitioners in these petitions. It is not appropriate for this Court to examine the correctness of the report submitted by the Expert Committee. ( 8 ) THE petitioners have also challenged the order passed by the respondent for recovery of the amount as per Annexure-J. The petitioners have all been given certain extra benefit by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court. Since the amount has been paid to the petitioners, if any steps are taken to recover the said amount it will virtually come in the way of the domestic and economic life of the petitioners. Therefore, I find that at this distance of time, it is not appropriate for the respondent-Corporation to recover the amount that has already been paid to the petitioners. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, writ petitions are allowed in part. The order passed by the respondents as per Annexure-J for the recovery of the amount is quashed. Therefore, I find that at this distance of time, it is not appropriate for the respondent-Corporation to recover the amount that has already been paid to the petitioners. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, writ petitions are allowed in part. The order passed by the respondents as per Annexure-J for the recovery of the amount is quashed. The writ petitions insofar as it relates to the challenge to the Report submitted by the Expert Committee is concerned, are dismissed. ( 10 ) RULE issued is made absolute. --- *** --- .