BIHAR STATE SUBORDINATE INDUSTRIES FIELD OFFICERS' ASSOCIATIONversusKAPILDEO PRASAD SINGH AND ORS. ETC.

    BIHAR STATE SUBORDINATE INDUSTRIES FIELD OFFICERS'                                A
                      ASSOCIATION
                                         11.
               KAPILDEO PRASAD SINGH AND ORS. ETC.

                                 MAY 10, 2000
                                                                                      B
         [M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.]


       Service Law:

      Bihar Industries Service Cadre Rules, 1987-Rules 3 to 15, Schedules            C
I to IV-Employees in group Bin Scale of Rs. 940-1660 and in group C
in Scale of Rs. 880-15 JO in Schedule IV belonging to the non-gazetted
category grouped together with Group A gazetted officers in Schedule IV in
scale of Rs. 880-1510 for promotion as Manager etc. in the scale of Rs.
1000-1820-Rationality of-Held, once the officers in group B were getting             D
a higher scale than those in group A, and group C officers were on a scale
equivalent to that of group A officers and if Government felt that they should
be brought into the feeder group, the same could not be treated as irrational
or violative of Articles 14 and 16(/)-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles
14, 16(/).
                                                                                     E
         Words and Phrases-Rule I J(a)-'Just be/ow'-Jnterpretation of

      The State of Bihar issued the Bihar Industries Service Cadre Rules,
1987 stipulating in Schedule IV the list of officers in 'Subordinate Service'
eligible for 'promotion' to the post of Manager/ Assistant Director. By the          F
said Rules, non-gazetted category of officers viz. field employees and statistics
employees of senior scales were included along with the gazetted categories,
for promotion to the post of Manager/Assistant-Director.

       Aggrieved by the inclusion of the field employees in the promotional
channel, the gazetted category of employees filed a writ petition in the High        G
Court. Single Judge of the High Court struck down the relevant rule not only
in so far as the filed employees were concerned but also in relation to statistics
employees. The Industrial Department Statistical Employees Association,
therefore, filed an LPA wherein it was clarified b} a Division Bench of High
Court that the judgment of the Single Judge would not affect the statistics
                                       185                                           fl
    186                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A employees. But this order was not noticed by the Division Bench which
    disposed of the LPA filed by the Bihar State Subordinate Industries Field
    Officers' Association against the judgment of the Single Judge, wherein the
                                                                                         ..
    Division Bench affirmed the entire judgment of the Single Judge. Hence~ the
    Statistics Employees as well as the field employees preferred the present
B   appeals which were heard together.

          On behalf of the appellants it was contended that such grouping of
    officers was not violative of Articl.e 14 when it was substantiated by the State
    that t~ere were good reasons for doing so.

C         Allowing the appeals, this Court

           HELD: I. The grouping tog:ether of employees in Group 8 in scale of
    Rs. 940-1660 and in Group C in scale of Rs. 880-1510 in Schedule IV
    belonging to the non-gazetted category with Group A gazetted officers in
    Schedule IV in scale of Rs. 880-1510 for promotion as Manager etc. in the
D   scale of Rs. 1000-1820 is not violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the
    Constitution. There may be varied reasons or situations or considerations
    that may be the basis for a decisio111 by Government in clubbing two groups
    together to improve the chances of promotion, even though one was a feeder
    channel for the other. One was that those in senior scale in Group 8 were
E   drawing higher scales than Group A. Those in higher scale in Group C were
    drawing same scale as Group A. Once these officers in Group 8 were getting
    a higher scale than those in Group A, and if Government felt they should be
    brought into the feeder group, the same could not be treated as irrational.
    Similarly, on the same considerations, Group C officers drawing Rs. 880-
    1510, which was a scale equivalent to the scale of Group A officers, were also
F   included in the feeder category, this could not by itself be treated as irrational
    One other important consideration, was that among Managers, it was felt that
    there must be more persons having experience in Extension posts and
    Statistical/ Investigator posts in the group 8 and C categories. Those who
    might have reached through an intermediate post, if any, were not found
G   sufficient, even assuming that those from 8 and C groups could have first
    gone to Group A and then as Managers. The promotion quota could go beyond
    SOo/e to 75% if suitable persons were available. These considerations cannot
    be ignored nor characterised as irrational. [191-F; 194-F-G)

          Md Usman and Ors. v. State of A.P., [1971) 2 SCC 188; State of
H Rajasthan v. Rajendra Kumar Godika, [1993) Supp. 3 SCC 150 and Union
 BlllARSTATE SUBORDINATEINDUSTIUESFIEIDOFl'lCERS' ASSON. •. K.P. SINGH [M. JAGANNADHA RAO.I.]   187
of India V, N. Y. Apte, (1998) 6 sec 741, relied on.                                                  A
      La/it Mohan Deb v. Union of India, (1973) 3 SCC 862; Dayaram
Asanand Gursahani v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (1984) 3 SCC 36 and
State ofRajasthan v. Fateh Chand Soni, (1996) 1SCC562, held inapplicable.

       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3354 of 2000.                                  B
     From the Judgment and Order dated 9.9.98 of the Patna High Court in
L.P.A. No. 73of1991.

                                                WITH
       CIVIL APPEAL No. 3335 of2000.
                                                                                                      c
      Chandra Shekhar, P.S. Mishra, Neeraj Shekhar, Ambhoj Kr. Sinha,
Shyamal Kumar, Ms. Sheela Singh, Rakesh Khanna, Chandra Shekhar, Vishnu
Sharma, Upendra Mishra, Ms. Sunita R. Singh, Ms. Ritu Singh, RP. Singh, S.
Mukherjee, N.S. Bisht, Manoj Kumar Mishra, Saurabh Mishra and B.B. Singh                              D
for the appearing parties.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J. Leave granted in both the special leave
 petitions. These two appeals arise out of the judgment in LPA 73/91 dated E
 9.9.1998 rendered by the Patna High Court. The appellants in the Civil Appeal
arising out ofSLP No.21041 of 1998 are members of the Bihar State Subordinate
 Industries Filed Officers' Association (hereinafter called the 'Field Employees')
while the appellants in the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP 1133/99 are
members of the Industrial Department Statistical Employees Association
(hereinafter called the 'Statistics Employees'). Both groups belong to the F
Non-gazetted Service in Bihar and the dispute is between these two groups
on the one hand and Sri Kapildeo Prasad Singh and others who belong to
the Gazetted Service on the other. The learned Single Judge of the High Court
of Patna Held that the Rule contained in Annexure-I and in particular in
Schedule IV of the Bihar Industries Service Rules, 1987 is Ultra vires inasmuch G
as under that rule, the abovesaid non-gazetted category of officers i.e. field
employees and statistical employees of Senior scales were included alongwith
the gazetted categories, for promotion to the posts of Manager/ Assistant-
Director etc. in the then scale of Rs.1000-1820. The said decision of the
learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench. Aggrieved by the
consequent exclusion from the channel of promotion, these two sets of non H
     188                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A gazetted employees have filed these appeals.
          We have to point out that the Statistics Employees have filed their SLP
   seeking leave as they were not parties in LPA 73/91. What happened was that
   the gazetted category of employe1es who were aggrieved by the inclusion of
   the field employees in the promotional channel filed writ petition CWJC 53 52
B of 1987 in the High Court. The learned Single Judge struck down the relevant
   rule not only in so far as the field officers were concerned but also in relation
   to Statistics employees. The Statistics Employees in Grade 880-1510 were not
   heard. They tnerefore filed LPA No. 82of1991. It was clarified by a separate
  judgment dated 20.5.1993 in LPA 82 of 1991 by a Division Bench that the
C judgment of the learned Single Judge would not affect the statistics employees
   in grade 880-1510 who belonged to the Economic Investigating group. But
   unfortunately, this order was not noticed by the Division Bench which disposed
  of LPA 73/91 filed by the Field Employees against the judgment of the learned
  Single judge. The Division Bench in its order dated 9.9.98 affirmed the entire
  judgment of the learned Single Judge i.e. even that part which struck down
D the promotion channel for the statistics employees. Apprehending that this
  judgment dated 9.9.98 amounted to striking down the rule in so far as the
  statistics employees were also concerned, - in spite of what was said in LPA
  82 of 1991-the Statistics Employiees filed SLP I 133/99, with leave. Having
  regard to the fact that issues are pending from 1987, and that the striking
  down of the entire rule remain1~d stayed and both Field Employees and
E Statistics Employees were given promotions under the impugned rule, we are
  deciding the matter on merits both in respect of the Field Employees and the
  Statistics Employees.

           We may refer to a few facts : In letter dated 24.12.86, the State of Blhar
F (Industries Department) wrote to the Accountant General, Bihar that in the
  light of the judgment of the High Court (Ranchi Bench) in CWJC 739/80(R)
  and 740/80 (R), the State had taken a decision for sanctioning the following
  scales of Pay in Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade for 'promotion'
  and grant of higher scale of pay of Industries Extension Officers. The scale
  of pay which was Rs. 310-490 would stand revised as Rs. 400-660. Similarly
G pay of the said officers in Selection Grade would stand revised as Rs. 415-
  745. Along with this, the State took a decision to create 20% out of the total
  strength of 270 posts i.e. 54 pos1s in the Selection Grade Scale of Rs. 415-
  745 and a further 20% on the same 270 strength i.e. 54 posts of Senior
  Selection Grade scale of Rs. 570-1155. This order was to be effective Crom
H   1.1.1971.
 BlllAR STATE SUBORDINATE INDUSTRIES FIELD OFFICERS' ASSON v. KP. SINGH [M. JAGANNADllA RAO, l I   189

      Thereafter the State issued the Bihar Industries Service Cadre Rules,                              A
1987. Rule 3 deals with constitution of the service. Rule 4 states that there
will be direct recruitment as stated in Part III and promotion as stated in Part
IV. Rule 5 deals with notifying vacancies to the Public Service Commission.

       Part IV contain Rules 11 to 15. Rule l l(a) states that promotions shall
be made from amongst the officers holding posts ''just below". Rule 11 (c) B
states that promotion to the initial rung of the cadre shall normally be made
from amongst the officers listed in Schedule IV appended to these Rules on
the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Rule 12 lays down the ratio between direct
recruitment and promotion. Sub-clause (a) of Rule 12 states that on all posts
in the scale of Rs. 1000-1820 or its corresponding revised scale to be ordered C
by the Government from time to time, the percentage of direct recruitment and
promotees will normally be in the ratio of 50% each, provided that if the
Government is satisfied that sufficient suitable and eligible officers listed in
Schedule IV of these rules are available for promotion, the Government may
increase the quota of promotion in the first year of the commencement of
those rules which shall not exceed 75% in any case. Sub-clause (b) states that D
all superior posts above the scale of Rs. 1000-1820 save and except those
posts which are ear-marked for other services, shall be filed in by promotion
from the eligible officers of the cadre who have filed requisite 'Kalawadhi'
(qualifying service) on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Rule 13 refers to the
Kalawadhi as specified in Schedule III appended to the Rules. Rule 15 states E
that procedure for promotion is to be through the DPC, to be headed by the
Chairman of the Service Commission or a member of the said Commission.

       Schedule I to the Rules deals with sanctioned strength to the Bihar
Industries Service. There are 3 posts of Additional Director in scale .of Rs.
2325-2850, 11 posts of Joint Director in scale of Rs. 1900-2500, 67 posts of Dy. F
Director (& other equivalent posts) in scale of Rs. 1575-2300, 121 posts of
functional Manager (& other equivalent posts) in scale of Rs. 1350-2200 and
187 posts of project Manager (and other equivalent posts, Assistant Director,
etc.) in scale of Rs. 1000-1820
                                                                                                         G
       Schedule II refers to the essential qualification for Direct Recruitment
in the Initial Rung (Entry-Point), i.e. posts in scale of Rs. 1000-1820. Candidates
are to have II class degree in Engineering or Technology of Degree in Arts
etc. with experience of 2 years in a reputed industrial concern.

      Schedule lJI refers to the Kalawadhi (qualifying service) for promotions H
     190                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A beyond Managers posts. Rs. 1000-1820 to Rs. 1350-2000, it is 5 years and for
    promotion for Rs. 1350-2000 to Rs. 1575-2300, from Rs. 1575-2300 to Rs. 1900-
    2500, from Rs. 1900-2500 to Rs. 2325-2850, Rs. 2325-2850 to Rs. 2600-3200 it
    is 3 years.

           Then we come to the impugned provisions in Schedule IV. It refers to
B the list of officers in 'Subordinate Service' who shall be eligible for 'promotion'
    to the posts of Manager/Assistant Director and others in the scale of Rs.
    1000-1820 These are in 3 group A, B and C.

          The A group is a gazetted category from which promotion is to the
    posts of Manager in scale of Rs.1000-1820. It consists of Assistant Manager,
C   Superintendent, Dy. Information Officer, Project Officer & other posts-all in
    scale of Rs. 880-1510. (These Offic:ers are the writ petitioners and respondents
    before us).

           Then come the groups B and C - the non-gazetted category where those
D holding senior scale are made eligible under these 1987 Rules for promotion
    as Managers in the scale of Rs. IOCI0-1820. These officers in the group B and ·
    C are as follows:

           "(B) Industrial Extention Officer               Rs. 940-1660
                                                           (Senior scale)
E          (C) Economic Investigators/                    Rs.880-1510
                                                          (Senior scale)
                Statistical Assistant/Supervisors         Rs.850-1360
                                                           (Lower scale)
            Note: 8 (eight) posts of Assistant Directors (or equivalent) in pay-
F           scale of Rs. I000-1820 shall be ear-marked for the ministerial staff of
            the department."

          (The Industrial Extention Officers are the field Employees referred to by
    us who filed the appeal arising out of SLP 21041/98. The Economy
G   Investigators/etc. are those who have filed the appeal arising out of SLP 1133/
    99.)

        Now the channel of promotion to Manager in Rs. I000-1820 is confined
  to and includes Group B senior scale in Rs. 940-1660 and Group C in Rs.880-
  1510 scale. This channel given to these non-gazetted employees was questioned
H by the Group A gazetted category which was also in the feeder channel.
 BIHAR STATE SUBORDINATE INDUSTRIES FIELD OFFICERS' ASSON. v. K.P. SINGH (M. IAGANNADHA RAO, I.]   191
       The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have struck down the                              A
inclusion of these employees in groups B and C in senior scale in the
Schedule IV for promotion as Managers on the ground that they cannot be
clubbed with the gazetted category in Group A viz. Assistant Managers,
Superintendents, Dy. Information Officers, Project Officers etc. in scales of
Rs.880-1510 since the latter group belonged to gazetted category of officers
while the former were in non gazetted category. In other words, the grouping                             B
of certain non-gazetted categories with certain gazetted categories-even if
they were drawing equivalent or higher scale-was held to be irrational and
arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India.

      Learned senior counsel, Sri Chandrashekhar for the Field employees and
Sri P.S. Mishra for the Statistics employees have contended that this Court                              C
has held that such grouping of officers is not violative of Article 14 when it
is substantiated by the State that there are good reasons for doing so. Cases
in which promotions are from post X to post Y and from post Y to Z and were
re-grouped by permitting groups X and Y to be clubbed together for promotion
to group Z and where such a grouping was upheld were cited in this connection                            D
for the appellants.

       On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Sri S. Mukherjee
tried to support the judgment of the High Court.

      Counsel for the State of Bihar, Sri B.B. Singh supported the case of the                           E
appellants.

      The point for consideration is: whether the grouping together of
employees in group B in scale 940-1660 and in Group C in scale 880-1510
Schedule IV belonging to the non-gazetted category with Group A gazetted
officers in Schedule IV in scale 880-1510 for promotion as Manager etc. in the
scale ofRs.1000-1820 is violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) as being irrational?                          F
       We may state that there is also a quota flXed by the State for promotion
from groups A, B and C but we are not concerned here with the quota as
such. We are also not concerned with the Kalawadhi or qualifying service of
different groups of officers.
                                                                                                         G
      Before we advert to the reasons given by the State for clubbing the
senior scale in the non-gazetted groups B and C with the gazetted group A
for promotion, we shall refer to few rulings of this Court which, in our view,
are quite relevant.
       The earliest of these decisions is the one in Md. Usman and Ors. v.                               H
     192                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. I S.C.R.

 A State ofA.P., [l 971] 2 SCC 188. In that case, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
   struck down Rule 5 of the A.P. Registration Subordinate Service Special Rules
   but this Court set aside the said judgment and upheld the Rule. Under Rule
   5, promotion was to the post of sub-Registrar. There Grade I posts would be
   filled from Grade II Sub-Registrars. The Grade II Sub-Registrar category was
B to be filled from (i) Reserve Sub-Registrars and (ii) "Clerks", by transfer from
   the Registration/Stamp Department including office of Registrar Gener11l and
   Registrar of Firms. It was contended for Upper Division Clerks that among
  "clerks", there were Upper Division as well as Lower Division Clerks and that
   initially, Lower Division Clerk had to be promoted as Upper Division Clerks
  and that clubbing an inferior feeder category and a superior category for
C purposes of further promotion was violative of Article 14 in the sense that
  unequals were treated as equals. This Court reversed the High Court and held
  that the policy of the Government was based upon the fact that promotion
  as Upper Division Clerk was District wise and in some districts promotions
  of Lower Division Clerks as Upper Division Clerks were faster than in other
D districts due to fortuitous circumstances in one district and that with a view
  to remove this inequity, the Government took a policy decision to club the
  LDCs and UDCs into one group. This policy was held valid.

           The facts of the case in State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Kumar Godika,
    [1993] Supp. 3 SCC 150, are also similar. The High Court struck down the
E   relevant Rule but this Court again reversed the judgment. In that case, group
    E Headmasters who were in charge of Higher Secondary Schools objected to
    be clubbed with Group F Headmasters in charge of Secondary Schools, for
    promotion into Group Das Principals, Higher Secondary Schools. They raised
    objection on the ground that Group F posts were themselves feeder posts for
    filling upto Group E posts. l11e plea was that this amounted to treating
F   unequals as equals. The High Court accepted this contention. But this Court
    rejected the said contention on the ground that the nature of duties and
    functions were same and the policy there was to give only the remaining
    vacancies of Group D to the Group F and on merit. Md. Usman v. State of
    A.P. was followed.
G
         More recently, in Union ofIndia v. N. Y. Apte, [1998] 6 SCC 741, a similar
  situation arose. The Central Administrative Tribunal's decision striking down
  the rule was set aside by this Court. In that case, the posts in Meteorological
  posts of MG I and MG II were class I gazetted posts whereas posts of A.M.
  were Class II gazetted posts. In 1969, the posts of MG I were to be filled from
H MG II. Fifty percent of posts in MG II were to be filled by promotion from
 BIHAR STATE SUBORDINATE INDUSTRIES FIELD OFFICERS' ASSON. '· K.P. SINGH [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, l. J }   9J

A.M. and equivalent posts (posts of A.M. were to be filled from posts of A
Professional Assistant, Super-Intendent etc.) In 1978, the rules were modified.
Posts in MG II were to be filled only by direct recruitment. The impugned
provision however stated that posts in MG I were to be filled from MG II with
S years experience or from A.M. with 10 years approved service or with
combined 8 years service of MG II and A.M. Later, in 1983, the 10 years B
qualifying service referred to above was reduced to 8 years. The direct
recruits of MG II of 1981-82 challenged the rule and the.Central Administrative
Tribunal held that 1978 and 1983 Rules were bad because the post of A.M.
had been equated with MG II for promotional purposes and thereby unequals
were treated as equals. This Court set aside the judgment of the Tribunal.
Apart from the educational qualification and scales, being same, it was held C
that the fact that certain persons with equal qualification, joined a lower grade
would not keep him permanently inferior or unequal to a person who had
entered a higher grade so as to prevent them from being placed on a par with
the latter after gaining sufficient experience in the service. A mere chance of
promotion was not a right nor a condition of service. If the rule making D
authority thought it fit to equate these persons with persons having longer
experience, there was nothing wrong.

       Thus, there may be varied reasons or situations or considerations that
may be the basis for a decision by Government in clubbing two groups
together to improve the chances of promotion, even though one was a feeder E
channel for the other. In the present case, it is also important to note that
under Rule 12, Government stated that the quota for promotees could extend
from 50% to 75% if suitable promotees were available. This increase in
promotional quota was indeed intended to accommodate the Groups B and
C also in the channel to the promotion category. Secondly, the Group A F
officers were in the Scale of Rs. 880-1510. Once in the Group B, the Senior
Selection grade officers were put in the scale of Rs. 940-1660, it was not
permissible - even though they were in non-gazetted category - to bring them
down to the scale of Rs. 880-1510 in the gazetted category by reducing their
grade and then to promote them as Managers etc. in Rs. 1000-1820. That was G
indeed the implication of the contention of the gazetted category. Once these
officers in Group B were getting a higher scale than those in Group A, and
if Government felt that they should be brought into the feeder group, the
same could not be treated as irrational. Similarly, on the same considerations,
Group C officers drawing Rs. 880-1510, which was a scale equivalent to the
scale of Group A officers, were also included in the feeder category, this could H
     194                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A not by itself be treated as irrational. One other important consideration, - as
    stated in the Government's counter - was that among Managers, it was felt
    that there must be more persons having experience in Extension posts and
    Statistical/Investigator posts in the Groups B and C categories. Those who
    might have reached through an intennediate post, if any, were not found
B   sufficient, even assuming that those from B and C group could have first
    gone to Group A and then as Managers. The promotion quota could go
    beyond 50% to 75% if suitable persons were available. In addition to this the
    State Government explained in their counter affidavit filed in the High Court
    that, in respect of the inclusion of the senior scale officers of Groups B and
    C, the Public Service Commission was consulted and it concurred with the
C   policy of inclusion of these groups in the feeder channel. Industrial Extension
    Officers posts were created in all the Districts and they have their importance
    in preparation and industrial planning. In Manager cadre, people with such
    experience were considered necessary. Most of the posts in the scale of Rs.
    I 000-1820 were also created at District level. If Government kept these facts
D   and the scales of pay in mind when they made the provision creating the
    avenue of promotion from Group B and Group C employees, it cannot, in our
    opinion, be held to be irrational. The use of the words "just below" in Rule
    I l(a) did not mean just below in the gazetted category.

        The learned Single Judge relied upon La/it Mohan Deb v. Union of
E India, [1973) 3 SCC 862 and on Dayaram Asanand Gursahani v. State of
  Maharashtra and Ors., [1984] 3 SCC 36 for holding that appointment to a
  higher grade was not a promotion. But, in State of Rajasthan v. Fateh Chand
  Soni, [ 1996) I SCC 562, the same passages were relied upon by this Court to
  hold that the appointment was in the nature of a promotion. But, we fail to
F see any relevance of this aspect in the present case. Whether the grant of
  a senior scale amounted to a promotion or not is not relevant. The question
  here is whether there was some rational basis for including these posts in the
  feeder categories. Two or three reasons have been given. One was that those
  in senior scale in Group B were drawing higher scale that Group A. Those
  in higher scale in Group C were drawing same scale as Group A. The posts
G of Manager in Rs. I 000-1820 were mostly in Districts and those working in
  same or higher scales in certain lower posts were included because in the
  promotional post of Managers those having experience in these areas where
  these Group B and Group C employees were having experience, were felt
  necessary. In other words, more posts of Managers were to be manned by
H those having experience in some other areas as well and that is why the quota
B!HAR STATE SUBORDINATE INDUSTRIES FIELD OFFICERS' ASSON. •. K.P SINGH (M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.) }   95
in the Manager's posts as per Rule 12 could go beyond 50% upto 75% for                                  A
promotees, if suitable hands were available. The considerations in our view
cannot be ignored nor characterised as irrational.
     For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the judgment of the High Court
and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondents.
                                                                                                        B
       The appeals are allowed accordingly.

M.P.                                                                        Appeals allowed.