S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) WE writ petitioners being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single judge, dated 12th January, 2000 in W. P. Nos. 11393 and 11394 of 1998 have preferred these writ appeals. In the above writ petitions, the petitioners sought a direction to the respondent-Corporation to redesignate/restructure the cadre of the petitioners in terms of the Government order No. FD 55 SRP 85, Bangalore, dated 30th October, 1985 and government Circular, dated 10-2-1986 and include the names of the petitioners in the Gradation list of "superintendents" and to consider and promote them to the cadre of "manager" and next higher cadres by undertaking review of promotions. ( 2 ) LEARNED Single Judge having considered the judgment of the Division bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1573 to 1577 of 1995, dated 1. 7-6-1997 has opined that by virtue of the said order of the Division bench, petitioners are entitled to time pay scale of Rs. 860-1650, but the petitioners are not entitled to seek 'mandamus' to the respondents to redesignate the post held by them as Accounts Superintendent or Superintendent or seek promotions to higher cadres. Learned Single Judge having opined so, dismissed writ petitions by the order under appeal. ( 3 ) WE have heard Sri M. S. Bhagwat, learned Counsel for writ appellants and Sri M. Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent/corporation. ( 4 ) SRI Bhagwat would draw our attention to the following operative portion of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ appeal Nos. 1573 to 1577 of 1995. "the order made by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the respondents are directed to fix the pay scale of the appellants at rs. 860-1650 and accord them all such benefits that flow therefrom, within six months from today",and contend that in terms of the above direction of the Division Bench which was allowed to become final, writ petitioners are not only entitled to timescale of pay of Rs. 860-1650 but, they are also entitled to be redesignated as Superintendents and that is the only reasonable meaning that could be given in construing the order of the Division Bench read with the Government Order No. FD 55 SRP 85, Bangalore, dated. 50th October, 1985. 860-1650 but, they are also entitled to be redesignated as Superintendents and that is the only reasonable meaning that could be given in construing the order of the Division Bench read with the Government Order No. FD 55 SRP 85, Bangalore, dated. 50th October, 1985. On the other hand, Sri Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation would submit that the Government order No. FD 55 SRP 85, dated 30th October, 1985 does not direct redesignation of Accountants as Superintendents and that in terms of the Government Order No. FD 55 SRP 85, Bangalore, dated 30th October, 1985 as well as in terms of the direction issued by the division Bench of this Court in the above writ appeals, the petitioners are entitled to pay scale of Rs. 860-1650 only. ( 5 ) HAVING heard learned Counsels for the parties, a short question that arises for decision is whether in terms of the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 17-6-1997 in Writ Appeal Nos. 1573 to 1577 of 1995 read with the above Government Order, petitioners are entitled to be redesignated as Superintendents as claimed by them in the writ petitions. ( 6 ) NO doubt, the above extracted operative portion of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1573 to 1577 of 1995 not only directs the respondent to extend the pay scale of Rs. 860-1650 but also accord all other benefits that flow therefrom, thereby meaning flowing from Government Order No. FD 55 SRP 85, dated 30th October, 1985. In that view of the matter, it will be beneficial to refer to relevant part of the government Order. Para 2 of the above Government Order reads. "government in exercise of the power conferred by sub-rule (2) of rule 4 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1982, are also pleased to order that the scale of pay applicable to the posts specified in column (2) of Annexure-I as from 1st January, 1982 shall be the revised scale mentioned in the corresponding entry in column (5) therein, in substitution of the revised scale mentioned in column (4) ibid". ( 7 ) ANNEXURE-I to Government Order No. FD 55 SRP 85, dated 30th October, 1985 as regards the post of Superintendent, Grade II, provides thus. "sl. No. Post 1976 Scale 1982 Present scale 1982 Revised scale (Min. Max.) (Min. Max.) (Min. ( 7 ) ANNEXURE-I to Government Order No. FD 55 SRP 85, dated 30th October, 1985 as regards the post of Superintendent, Grade II, provides thus. "sl. No. Post 1976 Scale 1982 Present scale 1982 Revised scale (Min. Max.) (Min. Max.) (Min. Max.) Rs. Rs. Rs. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Common posts 3. Superintendent, Grade II, Superintendent, Grade I, Manager, Grade II, Head Clerk, Senior Clerk (To be redesignated as Superintendents) 500-1120 750-1500 860-1650 admittedly, at the relevant point of time, that is to say, even before approaching this Court on earlier occasion seeking timescale of pay of rs. 860-1650 in terms of the above Government Order, both the petitioners held the post of 'accountant' and not the post of 'head Clerk' or 'i division Clerk' or 'senior Clerk', It needs to be noticed that Annexure-I to the above Government Order at Sl. No. 3 which deals with the post of superintendent, Grade II does not refer to the post of Accountant at all. Only posts of Head Clerk and Senior Clerk find places there. Therefore, simply because the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1573 to 1577 of 1995 directed the respondent-Corporation to fix the pay scale of the petitioners in the time pay scale of Rs. 860-1650 and accord them 'all benefits that flow therefrom', by force of that order. The petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right that the post of Accountant held by them should be redesignated as the post of Superintendent. In support of such a claim we do not find any factual or legal basis laid before the Court by the petitioners. Neither the judgment of the Division bench nor the above Government Order would support the claim of the petitioners. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the view taken by learned Single Judge. In addition, learned Standing counsel for the Corporation drew our attention to the two avenues of promotions in two wings of services of the Corporation, namely, administration wing and accounts wing. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the view taken by learned Single Judge. In addition, learned Standing counsel for the Corporation drew our attention to the two avenues of promotions in two wings of services of the Corporation, namely, administration wing and accounts wing. In the statement of objections filed by the Corporation, it is contended that after the Cadre and Recruitment rules were brought into force to govern the services of the employees of the Corporation, two wings namely, administration wing and accounts wing have been created and the petitioners have been serving in the accounts wing and therefore, they are not entitled to seek designation of superintendent which post falls under the administration wing. It was also pointed out to us that the vital differences in the matter of seeking promotion to the higher cadres under the administration wing and accounts wing with reference to Schedule II to the Recruitment Rules of karnataka Forest Development Corporation Limited, which has been produced as Annexure-R1 to the writ petitions. Sri Bhagwat, learned counsel for the writ appellants was not in a position to trace the entitlement of the appellants to seek redesignation of the posts presently held by them as Superintendents with reference to any of the provisions of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules or otherwise. Looking from that angle also, granting the kind of reliefs sought by the writ appellants would not arise. In conclusion, writ appeals are devoid of merits and they are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. --- *** --- .