1. None appears for the appellants despite service.
2. State is represented.
3. Court is informed that the private respondent was not paid the entirety of the retiral and service benefit by the Municipality.
4. Court is informed that the private respondent/writ petitioner served the appellants and its official including the learned advocate-on-record of the
appellants by a composite service which is filed in MAT 872 of 2019.
5. Since the appellants are not represented despite service, appeals along with connected applications stand dismissed for default.
