Judgment P.b. Majmudar, J. 1. Since common point is involved in both these petitions, they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. By way of these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the orders issued by the respondent board whereby transport assistance allowance, which was initially granted to the petitioners, was withdrawn and consequently, recovery of the amount already paid towards the same was directed to be effected. 3. Transport assistance allowance, which was nominal amount of rs.25/- or so per month, was initially given to the petitioners. By an order dated 14/6/1995, the respondent board decided to withdraw the said benefit on the ground that the koradi and khaparkheda areas do not fall under urban agglomeration of municipal corporation, nagpur and, therefore, transport assistance allowance paid to the petitioners should be recovered. 4. During the course of hearing, shri mohgaonkar, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that since areas in question do not fall under urban agglomeration of municipal corporation, nagpur, the transport assistance allowance could not have been given to the petitioners and, therefore, decision was taken by the respondent board to withdraw the same. Shri joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners, is not in a position to point out how the impugned decision of the respondent board is wrong or illegal in any manner. 5. On the basis of a rational policy, it was decided by the respondent board to discontinue the said allowance, which cannot be said to be part and parcel of the wages or salaries paid to the petitioners. If a particular allowance given to the employees in certain circumstances is withdrawn, such decision cannot be said to be arbitrary, discriminatory or violative of article 14 of the constitution of india. So far as the decision of the respondent board discontinuing the said allowance is concerned, we do not find any illegality in the same and, therefore, the prayer of the petitioners in this regard is required to be rejected. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that since 1995, the said allowance is not paid to the petitioners and in the meanwhile, most of the petitioners have either retired or died. Otherwise also, prayer to continue the said benefit has become academic in view of the fact that most of the petitioners have either retired or died. Otherwise also, prayer to continue the said benefit has become academic in view of the fact that most of the petitioners have either retired or died. So far as the second prayer of the petitioners regarding quashing of recovery of the amount is concerned, it is required to be noted that the amount was paid to the petitioners as per the policy of the respondent board prevalent at that time. It is not the case where in a fraudulent manner, the petitioners had obtained the benefit of transport assistance allowance. In view of the same, the action of recovery is not justified and, therefore, so far as the impugned order to recover the said amount is concerned, the same is set aside. Thus, both the petitions partly succeed to the extent of recovery of amount in question. 6. rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms. no order as to costs.