PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MURASOLI MARAN
DATE OF JUDGMENT06/12/1976
BENCH:
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH
SINGH, JASWANT
CITATION:
1977 AIR 225 1977 SCR (2) 314
1977 SCC (2) 416
ACT
Constitution of India, Articles 254, 343, 344, 349 and
351--"Compulsory in service training" in Hindi as part of
duty to all Central Government employces-Presidential Order
dated 27th April 1960--Validity--Official Languages Act
1963, s. 3(4), scope of.
HEADNOTE
Presidential Orders dated 27th April 1960 and the var-
ious orders and circulars issued pursuant thereto by the
Home Ministry, P & T Department and Railway Board, compel-
ling attendance in "Hindi in service training" as part of
duty and providing for penal consequences for non-attendance
were quashed by the Madras High Court as being inconsistent
with s. 3 of the Official Languages Act, 1963 as amended by
Act 1 of 1968 which was law made by Parliament under Art.
343(3) of the Constitution.
In appeals to this Court on certificates, the
appellant--Union contended: (i) The instructions were aimed
at promoting the policy of the constitutional revisions that
Hindi should be the official language of the Union; (ii) No
employee was placed at a disadvantage even if one could not
qualify oneself in Hindi because no penalty was prescribed
for an employee who did not attain any particular standard;
and (iii) The Government was within its rights to issue
orders obliging its employees to take training in Hindi
language, so that ultimately when Hindi became the language
of the Union they could perform their duty in an efficient
and smooth manner. The respondents reiterated their stand,
namely, (i) Article 343 of the Constitution is transitional
and directions of the President are limited to the period of
15 years from the commencement of the Constitution in view
of the provision in Articles 343, 344(1), 344(2)(a) and (b),
344 (3), 344 (6) indicating that directions should relate to
purposes of subclauses (a) to (e) of Article 344(2); (ii)
When the Official Languages Act 1963 embodied the field
covered by Parliamentary legislation, the Presidential Order
would not have any effect; (iii) The Presidential Order is
inconsistent with s. 9 (4) of the Official Languages Act
1963 as amended in 1968 and to that extent void; and (iv)
Under s. 3(4) of the Official Languages Act 1963, persons
were not to be placed at a disadvantage on the ground that
they do not have proficiency in both the languages, namely,
English and Hindi.
Dismissing the writ petitions and allowing the appeals,
HELD: (1) The Presidential Orders dated 27th April 1960
and the various orders and circulars issued by Home Minis-
try, P & T Department and Railway Board pursuant thereto are
valid. [323H]
(2) The Presidential Order was validly made and there
has been and can be no challenge to it. The President Order
keeps in view the ultimate object to make the Hindi language
as official language, but takes into note the circumstances
prevailing in our country and considers it desirable that
the change should be a gradual one and due regard should be
given to the just claims and the interests of persons
belonging to the non-Hindi speaking areas. The purpose of
the Presidential Order is to promote the spirit of the Hindi
language and to provide the Central Government employees the
facilities to take training in Hindi language when they are
in service. [322F-G]
(3) The provisions in Art. 344 indicate that if there is
a Second Commission at the expiration of ten years from the
commencement of the Constitution, the President, may after
consideration of the report, issue directions at the end of
fifteen years. The provisions contained in Art. 344(6) are
not exhausted by using it once. The President can use it on
more than one occasion. Further the effect of the power
used cannot be said to be exhausted on the expiry of fifteen
315
years. The Presidential Order which was issued in 1960
continues to be in force and cannot be said to have exhaust-
ed itself at the end of fifteen years from the commencement
of the Constitution. It would be strange that the steps
necessary for the change should be given up at the. expiry
of fifteen years because what is said to be a switch over
from English to Hindi has not been possible and Parliament
provided by law for the continued use of the English lan-
guage for particular purposes specified in that law.
[322D-F]
(4) Article 344 is enacted for the purpose of achieving
the object of replacing English by Hindi within a period of
15 years. The ultimate object is provided in Art. 351 which
fulfils the object of the spirit and development of the
Hindi language and enlargement of the composite culture of
India, Articles 343 and 344 deal with the process of transi-
tion. Article 343(3) provides merely for extension of time
for the use of English language after the period of 15
years. The progressive use of the Hindi language is thereby
not to be impaired. Extending the time for the use of the
English language does not amount to abandonment of progress
in the use of Hindi as the official language of the Union.
[321G-H, 322A-B]
(5) Article 344(6) provides that notwithstanding any-
thing in Art. 343, the President may after consideration of
the report of the committee issue directions. The non-
obstante clause in Art. 344(6) does not operate only against
Art. 344(1) and (2) but against the entire Art. 344 for the
reason that so far as transition is concerned, the direc-
tions under Art. 344(6) may continue. Article 344(6) takes
this objective and is intended to determine the pace of
progress and to achieve the same. [322B-C]
(6) The High Court failed to see the sequences of the
Presidential Order and the Official Languages Act. It is
erroneous to suggest that the Presidential Order of 1960
became invalid after the passing of the Act. The Act merely
continues the use of English language in addition to Hindi.
The Act does not provide anything which can be interpreted
as a limitation on the vower of the President to issue
directions under Art. 344(6) of the Constitution. The
Presidential Order has no inconsistency with the Act. The
non-obstante provision in Art. 344(6) empowers the Presi-
dent. [322G-H, 323A-B]
(7) Parliament is legislating in a different field. The
field is the permissible use of English language in addition
to Hindi during the period following 15 years because the
change to Hindi could not be complete. The trasitional
period has exceeded 15 years. The Presidential Order keeps
in view the steps to replace the use of English in Hindi and
the application of the Act and the Presidential Order is
in different fields and has different purposes. The Offi-
cial Languages Act is to continue the use of English lan-
guage after the expiry of 15 years, but Presidential Order,
on the other hand is, to provide for the progressive use of
Hindi language. It confers an additional qualification on
those who learn Hindi and does not take away anything from
the Government employees. Prizes are offered and there may
be increase in pay. These are incentives. The measures
taken for enforcement of provisions for learning Hindi by
providing for absence from classes as breach of discipline
and insisting on appearance at the examinations are steps in
aid of fulfilling the object of what is described as in
service, training in Hindi-language. Such enforcement of
attendance in examinations for proficiency if necessary for
completion of training. The contention that the Presiden-
tial. Order conflicts with s. 3(4) of the Act is unsound.
The "In service-training" of the employees is during hours
of duty and free of cost. Even if they fail, there is no
penalty. There is no treatment of unequals alike.[323 B-H]
[323B-F]
Murasoli Maran etc. v. Union of India & Ors. 1972 Madras 40
reversed.
JUDGMENT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1448 & 1587
of 1971.
(From the Judgment and Decree dated the 29-1-1971 of the
Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No. 119/70 and Writ Peti-
tion No.. 471/70)
Lal Narain Sinha, Solicitor General, 8. N. Prasad (in
CA No. 1448/71) and Girish Chandra, for the appellants.
316
K.K. Venugopal and K.R. Nambiar for the respondents. The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAY, C.J. These appeals are by certificate against
judgment and order dated 29 January 1971 of the High Court
of Madras.
The respondents filed writ petitions in the High Court
for a declaration that the Presidential Order dated 27 April
1960, the Railway Board orders dated 25 January 1962, Memo-
randa or Orders of the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 3
March 1966 and the Posts & Telegraph Department Orders dated
6 February 1965, 4 December 1965. 23 September 1967, 19 June
1968 and 9 February 1970 are void.
The Presidential Order dated 27 April 1960 was inter
alia as follows :--
XXX XXX
XXX
5. Training of administrative personnel
in the Hindi Medium ..........
(a) In accordance with the opinion
expressed by the Committee in service training
in Hindi may be made obligatory for Central
Government employees who are aged less than 45
years. This will not apply to employees below
Class III Grade, industrial establishtments
and work-charged staff. In this Scheme no
penalty should be imposed for failure to
attain the prescribed standard by the due
date. Facilities for Hindi training may
continue to be provided free of costs to
the trainees.
(b) Necessary arrangements may be made
by the Ministry of Home Affairs for the train-
ing of typists and stenographers employed
under the Central Government in Hindi type-
writing and stenography.
(c) The Ministry of Education may take
early steps to evolve a standard key-board for
Hindi typewriters.
XXX XXX
XXX
7. Recruitment to local offices of
Central Government Department :-
(c) The Committee has agreed with the
recommendation of the Commission that the
Union Government would be justified in pre-
scribing a reasonable measure of knowledge of
Hindi language as a qualification for entering
into their services provided a sufficiently
long notice is given and the measure of lin-
guistic ability prescribed is moderate, any
deficiency being made good by further in
service training.
This recommendation may be applied for
the present in regard to recruitment in the
local offices of the Central Government De-
partments in the Hindi speaking areas only and
not in the local offices in non-Hindi speaking
areas.
The directions under (a), (b) and (c)
above will not apply to offices under the
Indian and Audit and Accounts Department ....
"
317
The Railway Board Notification dated 25
January 1962 inter alia stated as follows:
"The progress of Hindi training of staff
on the Railways is very slow and the facili-
ties provided by the Government are not being
utilized properly. Immediate steps should be
taken to correct the position and ensure that
the facilities offered by the Government are
not misused. Since training in Hindi is
obligatory and is being imparted during work-
ing hours, wilful absence from Hindi classes
should be treated as absence from duty and
dealt with as such."
The Home Ministry Memorandum dated 3 March 1966 inter
alia stated as follows: In service training in Hindi was
made obligatory for all Central Government Employees below
45 years of age, excluding employees below Class III Grade,
industrial establishments and workcharged staff. The pro-
gramme for facilitating the progressive use of Hindi should
be completed by March 1966. Steps for the fuller use of
facilities under the Hindi Teaching Scheme were being laid
down. The facilities indicated that employees working in a
Ministry should get themselves enrolled in the Hindi classes
and failure to attend these classes should be discouraged
and the obligatory training should include their appearance
at the examinations.
One of the Posts & Telegraph’s Orders referred to above
is set out as a type. This Order provides teaching facili-
ties and free training in Hindi during office hours.
One of the petitioners in the High Court was Murasoli
Maran. He described himself as a sitting Member of Parlia-
ment and stated that he had duty to represent the people.
The locus standi of the petitioner was challenged in the
High Court’. The High CoUrt rightly held that the petition-
er could not maintain the petition in the High Court.
The petitioner in the other writ petition described
himself as Assistant Manager in the Office of the Post-
Master General, Madras. His locus standi was not chal-
lenged.
The petitioners contended in the High Court that the
Presidential Order ceased to have any effect because the
Second Language Commission was not appointed as contemplated
under Article 344 of the Constitution. The second conten-
tion was that the Presidential Order and other orders,
circulars and memoranda issued pursuant thereto were incon-
sistent with section 3 of the Official Language Act 1963, as
amended, inasmuch as they placed persons like the petition-
ers in a disadvantageous position on account of their having
no proficiency in the Hindi language.
The two relevant Articles in the Constitution are Arti-
cles 343 and 344. Broadly stated, Article 343 provides as
follows. The official language of the Union shall be Hindi
in Devanagari script. For a period of 15 years from the
commencement of the Constitution, the English language shall
continue to be used for all the official purposes of the
Union for which it was being used immediately before such
commencement. The proviso to Article 343 (2) is that the
President may,
318
during the said period, by order authorise the use of the
Hindi language in addition to the English language. Parlia-
ment may by law provide for the use, after the said period
of 15 years,of the English language for such purposes as may
be specified in the law.
Article 344 is as follows. The President shall, at the
expiration of five years from the commencement of the Con-
stitution and thereafter at the expiration of ten years from
such commencement, by order constitute a Commission. It
shall be the duty of the Commission to make recommendations
to the President as to (a) the progressive use of the Hindi
Language for the official purposes of the Union; (b) re-
strictions on the use of the English language for all or any
of the official purposes of the Union; (c) the language to
be used for all or any of the purchases mentioned in Article
348.
Article 344 further provides that a Committee shall be
constituted and it shall be the duty of the Committee to
examine the recommendations of the Commission constituted
under Article 344(1) and to report to the President their
opinion thereon.
Article 344(6), provides that notwithstanding anything
in Article 343, the President may, after consideration of
the report referred to in clause (5), issue directions in
accordance with the whole or any part of that report.
Article 351 provides that it shall. be the duty of the
Union to promote the spread of the Hindi language, to devel-
op it so that it may serve as a medium of expression for
all the elements of the composite culture of India.
In exercise of the posers conferred on the Parliament by
Article 343(3) of the Constitution, the Parliament passed
the Official Languages Act 1963. Section 3 of the Act
provided us follows :--
"Notwithstanding the expiration of the
period of fifteen years from the commencement
of the Constitution, the English language
may, us from the appointed day, continue to be
used, in addition to Hindi,--
(a) For all the official purposes of the Union
for which
was ,,being used immediately before that
day, and
(b) for the transaction of business in Parlia-
ment."
In 1968, the Parliament amended the Official Languages
Act 1963 and sub-section (4) was added to section 3. Sub-
section (4) as introduced by Amendment in 1968 is as fol-
lows:
"Without prejudice to the provisions of
sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-
section (3), the Central Government may, by
rules made under section 8, provide for the
language or languages to be used for the
official purpose of the Union, including the
working of any Ministry, Department, Section
or Office, and in making such rules, due
consideration shall be given to the quick and
efficient disposal
319
of the official business and the interests
of the general public and in particular, the
rules so made shall ensure that persons
serving in connection with the affairs of the
Union and having proficiency either in Hindi
or in the English language may function
effectively and that they are not placed at a
disadvantage on the ground that they do not
have proficiency in both the languages."
On 7 June 1955, the Official Language Commission was ap-
pointed by the President under Article 344(1) of the Consti-
tution. The Commission submitted its report in which the
arrangements made by Government of India for training their
employees on voluntary basis in Hindi Language was reviewed.
The Commission was of opinion that if experience showed
that no adequate results were forthcoming under such option-
al arrangements, necessary steps should be taken by the
Government of India making it obligatory on Government ser-
vants to qualify themselves in Hindi within the requisite
period, to the extent requisite for the discharge of their
duties.
The recommendations of the Official Language Com-
mission were placed before a Committee of the Parliament as
envisaged under Article 344(4) of the Constitution. The
Committee was of opinion that the Government should pre-
scribe obligatory requirements on Government servants to
qualify themselves in Hindi language.
The President of India after considering the report of the
Committee, issued the Presidential Order dated 27 April 1960
to which a reference has already been made. Training in
Hindi was made obligatory for employees.
Pursuant to the Presidential Order of 27 April 1960, the
Home Ministry issued an office Memorandum dated 3 March
1966.Reference has already been made to that order. The
Home Ministry Order made it obligatory for Government em-
ployees below 45 years of age excluding certain classes of
employees to have, what is described, "In service training
in Hindi". The Memorandum stated that 20 per cent of the
employees should be deputed to attend the
Hindi classes every year. The Memorandum also stated that
failure to attend these classes should attract penalties.
The obligatory training was to include their appearance at
the examinations.
Pursuant to the Home Ministry instructions, the
Post-Master General, Madras, under the directions of the
Director General of posts and Telegraph, issued a Memoran-
dum referring 10 the Presidential Order of 27 April 1960 and
the Home Ministry Order dated 3 March 1966. The Posts &
Telegraph Memorandum made "In service training in Hindi"
compulsory for all Central Government employees who were
aged less than 45 as on 1 January 1961. The Memorandum
further outlined the facilities and incentives provided for
the Hindi teaching. Specific mention was made that attend-
ance to Hindi class was compulsory and was treated as part
of duty. Non-compliance of Government Orders was to be
treated as breach of discipline.
Solicitor General contended on behalf of the appel-
lant that the instructions were aimed at promoting the
policy of the constitutional
320
provisions that Hindi should be the official language of the
Union It was said that with a view to achieving the objec-
tive the employees of the Government of India ought to be
trained in Hindi language. It was also said that no one was
placed at a disadvantage even if one could not qualify
oneself in Hindi because no penalty was prescribed for an
employee who did not attain any particular standard. It was
submitted that the Government was within its right to issue
orders obliging its employees to take training in the Hindi
language, so that ultimately when Hindi became the language
of the Union, they could perform their duties in an effi-
cient and smooth manner.
The High Court upheld the contention of the respondents
and held that the directions were inconsistent with section
3 of the Official Languages Act 1963. The High Court held
that the penal consequences which followed if a Government
employee absented himself from Hindi Classes had the effect
of putting such an employee at a disadvantage.
Counsel for the respondents contended first that under
Article 343(3), Parliament may by law provide for the use,
after the period of fifteen years, of the English language
for such purposes as may be specified in the law. Emphasis
was placed on Article 343 of the Constitution to submit
that Article 343 is transitional and directions of the
President are limited to the period of 15 years from the
commencement of the Constitution. The following reasons
were advanced:
The fact that the Commission has to be constituted under
Article 344 at the expiration of five years from the com-
mencement of the Constitution. namely, 1955 and thereafter
at the expiration of ten years from the commencement of
the Constitution, namely, 1960 and not thereafter, would
show that the directions issued by the President under
Article 344(6) are limited to the period of fifteen years
from the commencement of the Constitution. The position
which would prevail after 1965 would not be within the
knowledge of the Commission of the years 1955 and 1960
because the Parliament has to decide the same. The recom-
mendations of the Commission and the directions of the
President cannot relate to the period after 1965.
By reason of Article 344(2)(a) and (b) the recommenda-
tions of the Commission as to the progressive use of the
Hindi language and the restrictions on the use of the Eng-
lish language are matters to come within the period of
fifteen years from the commencement of the Constitu-
tion.
Article 344(3) of the Constitution which requires the
Commission to have due regard to the claims of non-Hindi
speaking persons in public services, indicates that these
claims cart be protected only when both English and Hindi
language continue.
Article 344(6) which states that notwithstanding any-
thing in Article 343, the President may issue directions
should be related to purposes of sub-clauses (a) to (e) of
Article 344(2).
321
Council for the respondent relied on Article 349 in
support of the contention that the affect of Article 349 is
that after fifteen years from the commencement of the Con-
stitution, if Parliament desires to substitute Hindi for
English it can do so under unfettered discretion but during
fifteen years it can substitute Hindi for English language
by Presidential directions.
The second broad contention on behalf of the respondent was
that the OffiCial Languages Act 1963 (referred to as the
Act) occupies a field covered by Parliamentary Legislation.
Reference was made to Objects and Reasons of the Official
Languages Act 1963, to show that acquiring of proficiency
in Hindi is the principal purpose. Section 3(4) of the Act
which was introduced and inserted by Amendment in 1968, was
said by the respondent to cover that area and inasmuch as
the Official Languages Act speaks of rules and the same
being laid before Parliament that is the only mode of direc-
tions. In other words, it was said that the Presidential
Order would not have any effect when the Official Lan-
guages Act occupied the field.
The third head of submissions was that the Presidential
Order is inconsistent with section 3(4) of the Act. It was
said in the High Court that if the Presidential Order was
inconsistent with section 3 (4) of the Act it would to
that extent be void. It was stressed that Under section
3(4) of the Act, persons were not to be placed at a disad-
vantage on the ground that they do not have proficiency in
both the languages, namely, English and Hindi.
In the forefront stands Article 343 which states that
the official language of the, Union shall be Hindi in Deva-
nagari script. Article 351 states that it shall be the duty
of the Union to promote the spread of the Hindi language, to
develop it so that it may serve as a medium of expression
for all the elements of the composite culture of India and
to secure its enrichment by assimilating without interfering
with its genius, the forms, style and expressions used in
Hindustani and in the other languages of India specified in
the Eighth Schedule. The original calculation of the
framers of the Constitution was that for a period of fif-
teen years the English language should be used for all
official purposes. That is why two Commissions were contem-
plated under Article 344--one in 1955 and one in 1960. The
provisions of Article 344 indicate that it shall be the
duty-of the Commission to make recommendations to the Presi-
dent as to the progressive use of the Hindi language. The
provisions of the Constitution indicate the progress towards
the use of Hindi language.
It is in this context that Article 344 is enacted for
the purpose of achieving the object of replacing English by
Hindi within a period of fifteen years. Article 343(3)
states that Parliament may by law after the period of fif-
teen years provide for the use of. English language. Al-
though the Constitution considered the period of 15 years
for replacing English the Constitution also found that it
might not be possible to complete it. Therefore, Article
343(3) provides merely for extension of time for the use of
English language after the period of 15 years. The progres-
sive use of the Hindi language is thereby ,not to be im-
paired. Extending the time for the use of the English
322
language does not amount to abandonment of progress in the
use of Hindi as the official language of the Union.
Comparing clauses (2) and (3) of Article 343 it will be
noticed that while English is permitted to be continued for
all official purposes for which it was being used clause (3)
contemplated that having regard to the progress made
Parliament, if necessary will choose the purpose for which
the use of the English language might be continued.
Article 344(6) provides that notwithstanding anything in
Article 343, the President may, after consideration of the
report of the Committee referred to in clause (5), issue
directions. The non-abstante clause in Article 344(6) does
not operate on1y against Article 344(1) and (2) but against
the entire Article 344 for the reason that so far as transi-
tion is concerned the directions under Article 344(6) may
continue. Article 343 and 344 deal with the processes of
transition. The ultimate aim is provided in Article 351
which fulfils the object of the spread and development of
the Hindi language and enrichment of the composite culture
of India. Article 344(6) takes into account this objective
and is intended to determine the pace of progress and to
achieve the same.
The provisions in Article 344 indicate that if there is
a second Commission at the expiration of ten years from the
commencement of the Constitution, the President may, after
consideration of the report issue directions at the end of
fifteen years. The provisions contained in Article 344(6)
are not exhausted by using it once. The President can use
it on more than one occasion. Further the effect of the
power used cannot be said to be exhausted on the expiry of
fifteen years. The PreSidential Order which was issued in
1960 continues to be in force and cannot be said to have
exhausted itself at the end of 15 years from the commence-
ment of the Constitution. It would be strange that the
steps necessary for the change should be given up at the
expiry of 15 years because what is said to be a switch over
from English to Hindi has not been possible and Parliament
provided by law for r. he continued use of the English
language for particular purposes specified in that law.
The Presidential Order keeps in view the ultimate object
to make the Hindi language as official language, but take is
into note the circumstances prevailing in our country and
considers it desirable that the change should be a gradual
one and due regard should be given to the just claims and
the interests of persons belonging to the nonHindi speak-
ing areas. The purpose of the Presidential Order is to
promote the spread of the Hindi language and to provide the
Central Government employees the facilities to take training
in Hindi language when they are in service.
The Presidential Order was validly made and there has
been and can be no challenge to it. It is erroneous to
suggest that the Presidential Order of 1960 became invalid
after the passing of the Act. The High Court failed to see
the sequence of the Presidential Order and the Act.
323
The Act merely continues the use of the English language
in addition to Hindi. The Act does not provide anything
which can be interpreted as a limitation on the power of
the President to issue directions under Article 344(6) of
the Constitution. The Presidential Order has no inconsist-
ency with the Act. The non-obstante provisions in Article
344(6) empower the President. Therefore, the Presidential
Order is paramount.
Parliament is legislating in a different field. The
filed is the per missive use of English language in addition
to Hindi during the period following 15 years because the
change to Hindi could not be complete., The transitional
period has exceeded 15 years. The Presidential Order keeps
in view the steps to replace the use of English language.
The operation of the Act and the Presidential Order is in
different fields and has different purposes. The Act is to
continue the use of English language after the expiry of
fifteen years. The. Presidential Order on the other hand is
to provide for the progressive use of the Hindi language.
The contention of the respondent that persons are placed
at a disadvantage is incorrect. The Presidential Order
confers an additional qualification on those who learn
Hindi. The Presidential Order does not take away anything
from the Government employees. Prizes are offered and there
may be increase in pay. These are incentives. The measures
taken for enforcement of provisions for learning Hindi by
providing for absence from classes as breach of discipline
and insisting on appearance at the examinations are steps in
aid of fulfilling the object of what is described as "in-
service training in Hindi language." Such enforcement of
attendance and examinations for proficiency is necessary for
completion of training. The contention that the Presiden-
tial Order conflicts with section 3(4) of the Act is un-
sound. The "in-service training" of the employees is during
hours of duty and free of cost. Even if they fail there is
no penalty. There is no treatment of unequals alike.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the High
Court is set aside. The Presidential Order and other Orders
challenged in the writ petitions are upheld. The appeals
are accepted. The writ petitions are dismissed. Parties
will pay and bear their own costs.
S.R. Appeal
allowed.
324