IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.676 of 2001 UMA SHANKAR PD. SRIVASTAVA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4 30.7.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondents. The issue involved is the date from which the annual increment is admissible to the petitioner on his promotion to the grade of Assistant Engineer. The promotion is by an order dated 20.4.1990 with effect from 27.12.1978. He has cleared departmental examination for promotion held in between 21.2.1993 to 23.2.1993, i.e. within three years of the date of the promotion i.e. 24.9.1990. The result has been published on 28.6.1993. The denial of the increment has led to the institution of this writ application. Reliance was placed on annexure 8 an order of this court in CWJC no.5209/97 disposed on 10.3.1999. The court at page 7 of typed copy of the judgment held as follows: “In the facts of this case the period of three years has to be counted from the date of their promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer i.e. 20.4.90 and 4.2.91. As such if the petitioners or any of them have named the examination within three years from the date of - 2 - issuance of notification granting promotion respondent State can not recover the increment paid earlier on account of not passing the examination within the prescribed period”. The counter affidavit of the respondents adequately reflects that there is no lack of understanding on their part of the judgment of this court as above. Nonetheless it urges that the claim of the petitioner was not justified on the ground that the petitioner was not a party in CWJC no.5209/97 and can not derive benefit from there as there was no general order for payment passed therein. The duty of the State is to assist the court in dispensation of justice and not to litigate for the sake of litigation. If there be issue involved the State shall have every right to protect its interest The law stands settled even by the Apex Court that an issue when decided shall cover all similarly situated and that there was no need for the persons to approach the court individually. The State should have had the grace to accord similar treatment unless for valid reasons it comes to the conclusion that a particular person was not entitled to the benefit of the same. Presently the State has assumed the role of an adversarial litigant imposing unnecessary burden - 3 - on the court. The present litigation has been generated by the State. The deponent of the counter affidavit an officer of the rank of Deputy Secretary must accept responsibility for his statements. This writ application is disposed holding that in terms of the order passed in CWJC no.5209/97 and for the reasons discussed therein the petitioner is also entitled to annual increment from the due date which shall be paid to him with interest at the rate of two per cent. The amount of interest shall be recovered from the salary of the deponent of the counter affidavit. shahid (Navin Sinha, J)