ORDER : The short grievance of the petitioner, a poor driver in the respondent– KSRTC relates to denial of allowances admissible for the over time job done by him. 2. After service of notice, the respondent – KSRTC, having entered appearance through its learned Sr. Panel Counsel resist the writ petition banking upon a circular dated 10.05.2011, a copy whereof is at Annexure – E which reads as under: 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, relief needs to be granted to the petitioner for the following reasons:- (a) it is not in dispute that the petitioner during the relevant period had put in over time service in the onerous job of driving; his claim for the grant of over time allowance is rejected quoting the aforesaid Circular, which does not have force of law, nor justification; a legal claim of an employee cannot be negatived by quoting such a Circular; (b) the right of an employee to the monetary gains of over time service has proprietary character; withholding the amount payable there for amounts to acquiring property sans compensation; therefore, the same is violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India; (c) extracting services from an employee without paying the remuneration therefor amounts to begar prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India; the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarath 1998 7 SCS 392 has recognized even the right of sentence serving prisoners to wages for the work done in the prison; that being the Nation’s Jurisprudence, denial of over time allowance falls foul of Article 23; and, (d) the impugned Circular has a strange reason for denying the over time allowance, namely, the same is variable depending upon over time work done by the employee; what is lost sight of by the respondent – Management is that, the amount payable for the over time job, is ascertainable and therefore, the variability spoken of by the Circular offends law reason & logic. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; the impugned Circular and the order are quashed; the respondent is mandamussed to consider and grant the allowance to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; the impugned Circular and the order are quashed; the respondent is mandamussed to consider and grant the allowance to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks. If delay in obeying the mandamus is brooked, first respondent shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner in addition to amount payable as allowance and that the same may be recovered from the erring officials. Now, no costs.