ORDER
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.
1. Writs will not be issued on mere apprehensions, Writ jurisdiction is to examine an existing cause, a genuine grievance, which can be redressed if the action on the part of the respondent which answer the definition of ‘State’, is arbitrary, whimsical, violative of any constitutional provisions or any existing statutory provisions.
2. Petitioners claim to be persons who are working as Second Division Assistants in research areas of the Karnataka State Sericulture Research and Development Institute-third respondent. It is claimed that the petitioners got some benefits in terms of Official Memorandum issued by the third respondent in No. KSS RDI: STAFF: PROMOTION: 2001-02, dated 30-8-2001, copy produced as Annexure-K.
3. Submission of Sri L. Lakshminarayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that this was pursuant to an Assured Career Progressive Scheme as indicated in Sub-clause 20 of Regulation 2/3 comprising the definitions of the words and expressions used in the Karnataka State Sericulture, Research and Development Institute (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 1997.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners now apprehend a threat to the pay scales that they have received under this Official Memorandum under Annexure-K in view of subsequent Office Order in No. Kssi/Staff/Kshe. Pra. SA/35(2) 2004-05, dated 2-7-2004, copy produced as Annexure-N; that it is likely that the pay scales of the petitioners will get reduced because of the present Office Order; and if so it will be even without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and therefore, petitioners are compelled to file the present writ petition. It is also submitted by Sri Lakshminarayan that similar persons were before this Court earlier and such writ petition in W.P. No. 23435 of 2004 was entertained by this Court and the matter has been remanded to the employer for affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners therein.
5. A perusal of the office order of the year 2004 does not necessarily indicate that the petitioners may be affected by this office order as there is no reference made in this office order to Annexure-K, which is relied upon by the petitioners claiming that they are drawing salaries in terms of Official Memorandum at Annexure-K
As Annexure-N does not even indicate that any adverse action as against the petitioners particularly, for depriving the benefits, if any, which the petitioners claim to have obtained under Annexure-K, and there is no reference made in office order at Annexure-N about the Official Memorandum Annexure-K, the apprehension of the petitioners is if at all hypothetical as of now. I do not find any real cause of action to examine the grievance of the petitioners at this stage.
6. However, if the third respondent-institute is examining the cause of action of similar other persons, petitioners may also join such persons for espousing their causes and put forth their version etc.
Without prejudice to such course of action, this petition is dismissed.