K. RAMAMOORTHY. J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in CW. 2296/95 had prayed for the following reliefs in the amendedwrit petition :- "it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon ble Court may bepleased to:- (i) to issue a writ ot certiorari or any other writ or writs quashing theimpugned Memorandum dated 7/06/1985, with a direction to therespondent to adhere to the policy of seniority vis-a-vis contractual/ad-hoc re-employed staff; (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to releasethe withheld salary in foreign emoluments US$ 1450, instead of US$1300 per month, with statutory interest of 2% per month; (iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writdirecting the respondent to place the petitioner in the pay-scale ofrs. 2200-4000 from the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 which is therevised scale to the pre-revised scale of Rs. 650-1200. " ( 2 ) CM. 3624/98 was filed by the LRs of the deceased petitioner, Dr. Ranjit Singh,to bring themselves on record, and the widow and the minor daughter of thedeceased petitioner were brought on record by order dated 17. 8. 1998. ( 3 ) THE respondent is a public sector organisation. On the 3rd of March, 1982, theboard of Directors of the respondent/company had resolved to take up the constructionof 23 kilometres long metre gauge railway line to serve a cement plant near Saida inalgeria. The petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis in the respondent/companyon the 5th of May, 1982. On the 20th of September, 1982, a letter of appointmentwas issued to the petitioner. On the 14th of June, 1983, the petitioner was appointedon temporary basis on the scale if Rs. 700-1200 on initial pay of Rs. 1,000 p. m. w. e. f. 21. 9. 1982. On the 25th of July, 1983, the petitioner, who was employed asfrench Interpreter, executed the bond on his being given assignment to work inalgeria. The bond was for a sum ofrs. 20,000. 00. On the 16th of August, 1983,anagreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent withreference to assignment in Algeria. His total emoluments were fixed at 550 US$and 2620 AD per month. The agreement also states that the petitioner would be paidan amount equivalent to 130 US$ p. m. of his service in Algeria, on certification offaithful and satisfactory performance of duty from Managing Director of the Company. His total emoluments were fixed at 550 US$and 2620 AD per month. The agreement also states that the petitioner would be paidan amount equivalent to 130 US$ p. m. of his service in Algeria, on certification offaithful and satisfactory performance of duty from Managing Director of the Company. On the 11th of September, 1983, the petitioner took up the assignment in Algeria. ( 4 ) ON the 27th of March, 1984, the petitioner met with an accident in Algeria andwas hospitalised till 9. 6. 1992. He had to come to India and he was in hospital till22. 8. 1984. In or about March, 1984, the petitioner and other employees who hadbeen sent to Algeria, made arequest to the respondent/company for refixing theiremoluments in Algeria. ( 5 ) ON the 31st of May, 1984, the Director (Works) of the respondent/companyissued the following order:- "orders for your repatriation to India received vide telex No. A-1418 dated23. 3. 84 from Corporate Office were conveyed to you on 22. 3. 84 and youwere asked to apply for sortie-definitive visa for the purpose. Unfortunately, YOU met with an accident on 27. 3. 84 before you could apply forsortie-definitive visa. YOU are now on way to recovery and have been discharged from thehospital on 27. 5. 84. The Doctors attending on you have also certifiedthat you are fit to travel to India. They have also advised that you shouldbe taken to India for better therapic ortheopaedic treatment which is notavailable here. It would, therefore, be in your interest to move to India at theearliest in accordance with the Doctor s advice. YOU are on sick list from 27. 3. 84. All the leave including sick leaveearned by you in Algeria has also been exhausted. Necessary arrangementfor your shifting from Algeria to India are being made Sortie-definitive visaforms have also been given to you on 23. 5. 84. You are advised to signthese forms and submit them to office along with your passport and onecopy of your photograph on/or before 2. 6. 84 for arranging sortie-definitivevisa, for your going to India early. " ( 6 ) ON the 23rd of August, 1984, the petitioner joined duty. On the 25th of August,1984, the Deputy Manager (Estt) of the respondent/company issued the followingofficer order:- "consequent upon his having been released by Project Director, Algeria, onrepatriation on 10. 6. 1984 Shri Ranjit Sinha, French Translator in scalers. 700-1200. " ( 6 ) ON the 23rd of August, 1984, the petitioner joined duty. On the 25th of August,1984, the Deputy Manager (Estt) of the respondent/company issued the followingofficer order:- "consequent upon his having been released by Project Director, Algeria, onrepatriation on 10. 6. 1984 Shri Ranjit Sinha, French Translator in scalers. 700-1200. 00 is posted in the Corporate Office w. e. f. 23. 8. 1984. "the pay slip was issued showing the pay of the petitioner as Rs. 1,000. 00. ( 7 ) ON the 12th of January, 1988, the post of French Translator was re-designatedand the office order issued on that date reads as under:- "with immediate effect, the following French Translators will be redesignated as under:-S. No. . Namerevised Designation1. Dr. Ranjit Sinhaasstt. Manager (Languages)2. Ms. Poonam Shownickasstt. Manager (Languages)3. Sh. R. R. Kapoorasstt. Manager (Languages)4. Sh. Ashit Shah Assistant Manager (Languages)5. Sh. Rameshwardayal Asstt. Manager (Languages) ( 8 ) ON the 16th of February, 1988, the petitioner was promoted as Deputymanager (Language ). The petitioner was given additional assignment to look afterthe library as its in Charge in the Corporate Office w. e. f. 29. 3. 1989. On the 1st ofdecember, 1990, a seniority list was issued with reference to the post of Deputymanager (Language ). On the 24th of December, 1993, the petitioner along withmr. Rakesh Ratti Kapoor, petitioner in CWP. 2297/95, and Mr. Rameshwar Dayal,petitioner in CWP. 2298/95, made a representation seeking further promotion. ( 9 ) IT is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner met the General Manager (Personnel) of the respondent/company on the 3rd of February, 1994 and also metthe Managing Director of the respondent/company on the 9th of February, 1994. The petitioner had filed, what is called, memo with reference to the discussion, thepetitioner is alleged to have had with the Company. On the 29th of July, 1994, therespondent/company issued an amendment to the IRCON Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1981 enabling the Company to dispense with the services of anemployee on the post in which he is working is abolished. ( 10 ) IT is asserted in the writ petition that the petitioner was confirmed as regularemployee w. e. f. 21. 9. 1992. On the 7th of June, 1985, a memo was issued seekingto terminate the services of the petitioner. The memo reads as under:- "sub: Reduction in Establishment in French Language Cell. ( 10 ) IT is asserted in the writ petition that the petitioner was confirmed as regularemployee w. e. f. 21. 9. 1992. On the 7th of June, 1985, a memo was issued seekingto terminate the services of the petitioner. The memo reads as under:- "sub: Reduction in Establishment in French Language Cell. "you were recruited as French Translator in the Company when thecompany was executing Projects in French speaking countries abroad. You are aware that these projects have now come to end. With the changedscenario, it has not been possible for us to gainfully utilise your servicesin the Company in the area of your specialisation for which you wererecruited. Therefore, you are advised to be on the lock-out for the jobsoutside IRCON where you can utilise your expertise in a better way. You canalso avoid the frustration of having to continue in the Company withoutadequate work. The Company on its part also does not like you to remainidle and the Management is willing to extend all help in your endeavour toseek jobs outside Organisation like forwarding of your applications etc. It is hoped that you will understand the realities and act immediately. " ( 11 ) ON the 20th of June, 1995, the writ petition was presented in this Court. On the4th Of July, 1995 when the writ petition came up for admission before a Divisionbench of this Court, the Division Bench directed the petitioner to make a representationto the respondent and directed the respondent to dispose of the representation. ( 12 ) ON the 6th of July, 1995, a representation was made by the petitioner to therespondent. In paragraph 2 of the representation, it is stated: "at the outset, I may humbly submit that I have got hardly 2 years andnine months to retire from the service. . I have been agitating eversincemy joining the present office after having a long experience and acquiredthe maximum qualifications as Doctorate in French Language. The basic payoffered tome was Rs. 1,000. 00 by the competent Selection Board, whereasthe stage in the pay scale was Rs. 1,020. 00,and as such, my pay shouldhave been fixed at Rs. 1,020. 00, instead of Rs. 980. Further, when I wasposted in September, 1983, in Algeria. I was given only US$ 1,300 permonth; whereas officers including Shri Satish Kumar Chaudhary and Shris. N. Sachdeva, who were junior to me, were given US$ 1. 450. 1,020. 00,and as such, my pay shouldhave been fixed at Rs. 1,020. 00, instead of Rs. 980. Further, when I wasposted in September, 1983, in Algeria. I was given only US$ 1,300 permonth; whereas officers including Shri Satish Kumar Chaudhary and Shris. N. Sachdeva, who were junior to me, were given US$ 1. 450. 00 per month. I made the very first representation in March, 1984, pointing out the aboveanomaly, along with Shri S. N. Sachdeva; whereby Shri S. N. Sachdeva wasreteased US$ 1,450. 00 per month, but my case was ignored, without any replywhatsoever. "this was with reference to the emoluments payable to the petitioner in Algeria. ( 13 ) CHALLENGING the memo issued, it is stated in representation: "that eversince my posting in India I have been gainfully employed for thelast over 11 years in various capacities, namely, overall-incharge of thetranslation Cell, Incharge of Library, Deputy Manager, scanning of tradejournals, etc. etc. Even as on today I am looking after all the work, exceptthe Library work, which has been given to Shri K. S. Sethi, an ex-Army Man,chief Manager (Admn. ). For the last 11 years, my job was found to besatisfactory and I never found myself under-employed by your office and allof a sudden when I am at a threshold of my retirement. I have been servedwith the above said Memorandum dated 7. 6. 95. " ( 14 ) ON the 21st of August, 1995, the respondent/corporation had issued an orderdisposing of the representation of the petition. Dealing with the representation, inparagraph 1 the respondent had said: "the appointment offered by the Company in the year 1982 as a Frenchinterpreter was on contract basis in the scale of Rs. 750-1000. The post offrench Interpreter was created in the Company in the scale of Rs. 750-1000 for availing services of a French Interpreter in connection with a projectcompany was handling at Algeria. The terms and conditions of yourappointment were stated in Company s letter dated 21. 4. 82. Inacknowledgement and by accepting the terms and conditions stated insaid appointment letter you joined the Company as a French interpreter on 15/05/1982 on contract basis in the seal of Rs. 750-1000. In view ofyour having accepted appointment under terms and conditions stated intheir letter dated 21. 4. 4. 82. Inacknowledgement and by accepting the terms and conditions stated insaid appointment letter you joined the Company as a French interpreter on 15/05/1982 on contract basis in the seal of Rs. 750-1000. In view ofyour having accepted appointment under terms and conditions stated intheir letter dated 21. 4. 82, grievance against any of the terms and conditionsstated therein is not permissible to be raised by your and as such not eligibleto fresh consideration. After having joined the Company on 15. 5. 1982 onterms and conditions stated in Company s tetter dated 21. 4. 82, you weregiven temporary appointment as French Translator in the scale of Rs,700-1200 on basic pay of RS. 1000. 00 p. m. as stated in Company s office -orderno. 95/83 dated 14. 6. 83. Having accepted the terms and conditions ofappointment stated in aforesaid office order dated 14. 6. 83 no grievanceagainst the same is eligible to be raised by you. In any event the termsand conditions stated in office order dated 14. 6. 83 are self descriptive andillustrative. "dealing with the grievance of the petitioner against the memo dated 7. 6. 1995, inparagraph 5 of the order dated 21. 8. 95 respondent said: "re-EMPLOYMENT of retired staff is resorted to by the Company inaccordance with the guidelines issued by the Department of Publicenterprises. Your filed of specialisation is only as French Translator, no reemployment can be envisaged under such guidelines. However, since youhave stated that you have only two years nine months to go for retirement,your name will be kept on panel and if during the aforesaid period in caserequirement of French Translator is found envisaged, you will be consideredfor appointment. " ( 15 ) ON the 28th of August, 1995, a rejoinder was sent by the petitioner to theorder passed by the respondent on the 21st of August, 1995. ( 16 ) ON the 29th of August, 1995, an additional affidavit was filed by the petitionerin this Court. On the 14th of February, 1996, an application for amendment of thewrit petition was filed. The petitioner has filed the statement showing the differencein salary for the period in which the petitioner was in Algeria, which the petitionerwas entitled to. ( 17 ) ON the 5th of August, 1996, the counter-affidavit to the writ petition was filedby the respondent. On the 13th of September, 1996, the petitioner filed rejoinder. The petitioner has filed the statement showing the differencein salary for the period in which the petitioner was in Algeria, which the petitionerwas entitled to. ( 17 ) ON the 5th of August, 1996, the counter-affidavit to the writ petition was filedby the respondent. On the 13th of September, 1996, the petitioner filed rejoinder. ( 18 ) THE main grievance of the petitioner was that white fixing his remuneration inus dollar payable in Algeria, his scale of pay in the post he was holding on that datewas not considered and employees who were on the same scale of pay or lesserscale were paid larger amounts than the petitioner. The petitioner had furtherstated that the services of the petitioner cannot be dispensed with when the petitionerhas served the organisation for more than ten years. The petitioner would state thatthe action of the respondent in attempting to dispense with the services is arbitraryand illegal and unreasonable. CW. No. 2297of1995 ( 19 ) THE petitioner in CWP. 2297/95, Rakesh Ratti Kapur, has come forward withthe same case as that of petitioner in CW. 2296/95, and in the amended writpetition, the writ petitioner in CW. 2297/95 has prayed for the following reliefs:- "it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon ble Court may bepleased to:- (i) to issue a writ or writs quashing the impugned Memorandumdated 7/06/1985, with a direction to the respondent to adhereto the policy of seniority vis-a-vis contractual/ad-hoc re-employedstaff: (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent torelease the withheld salary in foreign emoluments US$ 1450,instead of US$ 880 per month, with statutory interest; (iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writdirecting the respondent to place the petitioner in the pay-scale ofrs-2200-4000 from the pay scale of Rs-2000-3500 which is therevised scale to the pre-revised scale of Rs. 650-1200. " ( 20 ) ON the 23rd of March, 1996, the petitioner resigned from service. But thequestion whether the petitioner would be entitled to emoluments as claimed by him,as in the case of the petitioner in CWP. 2296/95, survives for consideration. CW. No. 2299 of 1995 ( 21 ) IN CWP. 650-1200. " ( 20 ) ON the 23rd of March, 1996, the petitioner resigned from service. But thequestion whether the petitioner would be entitled to emoluments as claimed by him,as in the case of the petitioner in CWP. 2296/95, survives for consideration. CW. No. 2299 of 1995 ( 21 ) IN CWP. 2298/98, the petitioner, Rameshwar Dayal, had prayed for the followingreliefs in the amended writ petition:- "it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon ble Court may bepleased to:- (i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or writs quashing theimpugned Memorandum dated 7/06/1985, with a direction tothe respondent to adhere to the policy of seniority vis-a-vis contractual/ad-hoc re-employed staff; (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 torelease the withheld salary in foreign emoluments US$ 1450, insteadof US$ 880 per month, with statutory interest. (iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writdirecting the respondent No. 1 to compensate the petitioner for notallowing him free air passage from Algeria to India and back fromthe years 1989 to 1992, i. e. four air passages, due to exigencies towork and the same compensation was given to sh. M. K. Seth whowas posted in Zambie under similar circumstances; (iv) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writdirecting the respondents to conside the case of the petitioner forpromotion and to give retrospective effect to the same so as tomitigate the hardships already caused to the petitioner. " ( 22 ) THIS petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste community. The petitioner wasalso employed as French Translator as in the case of other two petitioners. Thispetitioner also would claim emoluments at ahigher rate than fixed in the agreementbetween the parties. This petitioner is still in service, and, according to the petitioner,he being from a Scheduled Caste community, his services cannot be dispensedwith, and, according to the petitioner, the respondent/corporation has acted inan arbitrary fashion in issuing memo dated 7. 6. 1995. At page 79 of the paperbook, the petitioner has given a list of SC/st employees working in the Corporateoffice. This petitioner also would claim that the respondent/corporation had actedarbitrarily in fixing the emoluments of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the emoluments were fixed by the respondent/corporation reckoning the scale of paydrawn byemployees, who were to be sent to Algeria on assignment. This petitioner also would claim that the respondent/corporation had actedarbitrarily in fixing the emoluments of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the emoluments were fixed by the respondent/corporation reckoning the scale of paydrawn byemployees, who were to be sent to Algeria on assignment. ( 23 ) THE three petitioners were French Translators sent to Algeria. It is not disputedby the petitioners that they were paid emoluments as mentioned in theagreement entered into between the petitioners and the respondent/corporation. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent/corporation had decided onthe 10th of January, 1983 to pay officers/staff deputed in Algeria on the basis of therank and the scale of pay, and the petitioners remunerations in US dollars were notpaid in accordance with the decision, but in the agreement lesser amounts werementioned while other employees who were sent on deputation had been givenlarger amounts and that is discriminatory and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution ofindia. The decision taken on the 10th of January, 1983 reads as under-Reg: Payment of salary/per diem to the personnel deputed at Algeria. It has been decided to pay to the officers/staff deputed to Algeria, thetotal salary as per the details given below, w. e. f. 1. 1. 1983, in place ofindian Salary and Per Diem:cateranktotal Payable inpayable inretentiongoryemolumntsus$algerian Moneyproposed (equivalent in US$)Dinarsequivalent in US$aalevel 1240013703340240alevel 1230013103210230cj. A. Grade ( 68 Batch and senior)18009602990215dj. A. Grade (upto 68 Batch and Sr. Scale)16007902740160ers. 700-12001450660. 2740145frs. 550-750/ Rs. 700-9001100600650110grs. 425-70086055091085 ( 24 ) THE only question commen to all the three writ petitions on the aspect ofemoluments is: "whether the claim of the petitioners for higher emoluments in USdollars could be sustained? With reference to continuity of service, that wouldsurvive only in the case of Rameshwar Dayal, the petitioner in CW. 2298/95, aspetitioner in CW. 2296/95, Dr. Ranjit Sinha, had died and the petitioner in CW. 2297/95, Rakesh Ratti Kapoor. had resigned. ( 25 ) NOW, I shall take up the question of emoluments payable to the petitioners whilethey were in Algeria. As noticed above, on the 10th of January, 1983, the respondentcorporation had decided about the emoluments payable to officers/staff sent toalgeria on assignment in terms of US dollars. There, the scale of pay and rank arementioned. ( 26 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. As noticed above, on the 10th of January, 1983, the respondentcorporation had decided about the emoluments payable to officers/staff sent toalgeria on assignment in terms of US dollars. There, the scale of pay and rank arementioned. ( 26 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. O. P. Khadaria, submitted that therespondent/corporation had acted without any justification fixing the emolumentsof the petitioners far less than the others who were in the scale of pay or weredrawing less than the petitioners were drawing while they were in India. The learnedcounsel submitted that the respondent/corporation had misled the petitioners inmentioning some amounts in the agreements without any reference to the decisiontaken by the Corporation itself on the 10th of January, 1983. The learned counsetsubmitted that the respondent/corporation had assumed that the petitioners wereonly temporary employees and, therefore, the lesser amounts were fixed for thepetitioners. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners had to signthe agreements without any choice or option and they did not have the equality ofbargaining power with the respondent/corporation. The learned counsel submittedthat the respondents acted in an arbitrary fashion. ( 27 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. 0. P. Khadaria, referred to thefollowing judgments of the Supreme Court:- 1. "kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi etc. etc. Vs. State of UP and Others", AIR1991 SC 537 2. "assistant Excise Commissioner and Others Vs. Issac Peter and Others", 1994 4 SCC 104 3. "union of India and Others Vs. Hindustan Development Corpn. andothers", AIR 1994 SC 988 4. "vishwas Anna Sawant and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation ofgreater Bombay and Others", AIR 1994 SC 2408 5. "state of UP and Others Vs. Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd. ", (1996) 6 SCC 22 6. "union of India and Others Vs. Bhola Dutt Pandey", (1998) 4 SCC 133 7. "lic of India and Another Vs. Consumer Educations. Researchcentre and Others", AIR 1995 SC 1811 ( 28 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. O. P. Khadaria, referred to thedecision which had also referred to in the 25th Meeting of the Board of Directors onthe 3rd of March, 1982, which is same as what was decided on the 10th of January,1983. Consumer Educations. Researchcentre and Others", AIR 1995 SC 1811 ( 28 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. O. P. Khadaria, referred to thedecision which had also referred to in the 25th Meeting of the Board of Directors onthe 3rd of March, 1982, which is same as what was decided on the 10th of January,1983. The learned counsel submitted that once the remunerations payable to theemployees in Algeria was to be fixed on the basis of the scale of pay on whichthe employees were working, the respondent/corporation cannot deviate therefromand seek to reduce the amount at its own whims and fancies. ( 29 ) THE submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners,mr. O. P. Khadaria, had overlooked one crucial aspect that the scale of pay wasnot determinative of the issue. Different categories of employees in the departmentmay be on the same scale of pay but the duties and responsibilities might bedifferent and it would be depend on a variety offactors. Parity cannot be claimedon the basis of the similarity in the scale of pay. The petitioners working wereemployed as French Translators. That was a different category altogether. At thetime when the decision was taken in March, 1982 and January, 1983, the petitionerswere not on any substantive cadre in the respondent/corporation. The petitionersare bound by the terms of the agreement. The respondent has explained theposition in the counter and it is reasonably deducible from the documents placedon record. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the rulings cited by thelearned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. O. P. Khadaria, are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue in this case. Therefore, I am unable to accept the submissionsof Mr. O. P. Khadaria, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the respondentcorporation had committed any illegality or irrationality in fixing the emoluments ofthe petitioners while they are sent on assignment to Algeria as French Translators. ( 30 ) NOW, I Come to the question of the respondent s authority to dispense withthe services of the petitioner in CW. 2298/95. There is considerable force in thesubmission of Mr. O. P. Khadaria that the petitioner, Rameshwar Dayal, whobelongs to a Scheduled Caste category, whose post has been re-designated,cannot be sent out by the respondent. It is not the case of the petitioner in CW. 2298/95. There is considerable force in thesubmission of Mr. O. P. Khadaria that the petitioner, Rameshwar Dayal, whobelongs to a Scheduled Caste category, whose post has been re-designated,cannot be sent out by the respondent. It is not the case of the petitioner in CW. 2298/95, Rameshwar Dayal, is not capable of working on ministerial assignmenthaving regard to his long experience in the organisation. The respondent/corporationbeing a public authority, is bound to act in accordance with fairplay and justice, andcannot dispense with the services of the petitioner in CW. 2298/95 by simplyissuing a show cause notice asking him to fend for himself. It may also be noticedthat it is not the case of the respondent/corporation that the performance of thepetitioner, Rameshwar Dayal, has not been satisfactory. ( 31 ) IN the light of these facts, the respondent/corporation is bound to regularisethe services of the petitioner in CW. 2298/95, Rameshwar Dayal. Accordingly, thecwps. 2296/95 and 2297/95 are dismissed and CWP. 2298/95, in so far as theyrelate to payment of higher emoluments for assignment in Algeria stand dismissed. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to file a civil suit for the recovery of thesame, if so advised, and the respondent shall have the right to urge all pointsavailable to it in law. In CWP. 2298/95, the respondent/corporation is directed toregularise the services of the petitioner, Rameshwar Dayal. with all consequentialbenefits, including promotion of the petitioner to a higher post, in the post in whichhe has been functioning, and such order shall be passed by the respondent/corporationon or before the 30th of June, 2000. ( 32 ) THERE shall be no order as to costs.