Judgment :- The members of the Petitioner Union were initially employed in Non-Executive cadre in the Respondent Corporation. Subsequently, they were promoted to Executive cadre. The wages of the Non-Executives are determined by way of settlement. After such settlement to Non-Executive cadre, by way of circular, pay of Executives are revised. Once such revision was made on 1.8.1987, members of the Petitioner Union, who were originally in the Non-Executive cadre were promoted on or after 1.1.1987. When they were so promoted, some of them were getting lesser pay than they were getting in the Non-Executive cadre. 2. In order to alleviate the situation, the Department followed a method by which, wherever there was lesser pay due to promotion to Executive cadre, difference in the amount was paid as Personal Pay and this Personal Pay was sought to be adjusted in course of time as and when increments are granted. Suppose, if in the Non-Executive cadre a person was getting Rs.1,200/- and under the new scale he was paid only Rs.1,000/-, he will be paid Rs.200 as Personal Pay. After one year, when he gets increment of Rs.100/-, the Personal Pay would be reduced to Rs.100/-. In the second year, when he gets Rs.200/- as increment, there will be no Personal Pay. This is the method by which the anomaly was sought to to rectified by the authorities. 3. Whileso, when the members of the Petitioner Union were paid Personal Pay, a writ petition was filed before this Court and by an interim order dated 17.7.1991, this Court granted a stay not to adjust the Personal Pay in the above said manner. Therefore, amounts were not adjusted pending disposal of the writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed in the year 1996. Immediately after dismissal of the writ petition, the impugned order was passed whereby they wanted to adjust the amount in accordance with the order dated 5.7.1991 and that order is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on promotion to the Executive cadre, their salary should not be reduced. 5. Mr.N.A.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that only to protect the interest of the members of the Petitioner Union, "Personal Pay" was granted and the Personal Pay is sought to be adjusted in due course. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on promotion to the Executive cadre, their salary should not be reduced. 5. Mr.N.A.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that only to protect the interest of the members of the Petitioner Union, "Personal Pay" was granted and the Personal Pay is sought to be adjusted in due course. This was the order passed on 5.7.1991 and that order has not been challenged in this writ petition and only the consequential order is challenged in this writ petition. 6. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is acceptable. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged only the consequential order and not the original order. There is no dispute that the original order is enforceable and this order is passed only to protect the interests of the members of the Petitioner Union. This order is not challenged by any of the Unions. Before the Judge, the request made was that the Personal Pay that was paid to them should be treated as pay for all other purposes. But this court has specifically rejected that contention and did not treat that as pay for all purposes. Therefore the order dated 5.7.1991 has to be applied. According to that order, the Personal Pay has to be adjusted in the forthcoming years and there is nothing illegal and pay protection is what sought to be achieved by the impugned order. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that his endeavour is only to see that the pay of the members of the Petitioner Union should not be affected, when they were promoted to the Executive Cadre. This is exactly what is sought to be achieved by the order dated 5.7.1991. Hence there is no violation of any statutory or other rights. 7. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.