IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1708 of 2009 Mithilesh Kumar Sinha & Ors . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- For the Petitioners:- Mr. Gyanand Roy, Adv. Mr. Sheo Nandan Mishra, Adv. For the State:- Mr. A.A.G.-I -------------- 3. 04.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 22.1.2008 by which their representation to be considered in like manner as the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13903 of 2003, with whom they are similarly situated has been rejected. The order in the aforesaid writ petition is stated to have been affirmed in L.P.A. No. 864 of 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by an order dated 3.8.1994, certain deductions were directed to be made from their salary in easy installments. Some of the affected persons moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13903 of 2003. A Bench of this Court held as follows:- “Taking all these aspects into consideration, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 3.8.1994, as contained in Annexure-1, is not required to be interfered with except that part which directs the recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioner. The aforesaid order so far as it relates to recovery part is set aside and the remaining order fixing his salary in lower 2 pay scale is upheld.” The petitioner then represented for similar treatment which has been denied by the impugned order. Counsel for the State is unable to demonstrate to the Court from a rather cryptic counter affidavit as to how the petitioners were different and distinguishable on facts from those who approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13903 of 2003 affirmed in L.P.A. No. 864 of 2005. The order impugned is non- speaking in nature and displays no reason why the claim of the petitioners to be similarly situated as those granted relief by this Court was not acceptable and how the present petitioners were distinguishable. It merely proceeds to reject their representation after consideration, not displaying what the consideration was. If a non speaking order was not sufficient to set aside the impugned order dated 22.1.2008, the counter affidavit is hardly helpful in adjudication. The law stands well settled that where persons are similarly situated as others granted relief by a Court of law, the respondents are expected to consider their cases in accordance with the directions of the Court to cut short litigation and not to multiply litigation by a casual approach refusing to consider in like manner, compelling citizens to approach the Court again for similar relief 3 without any ground for differentiation in treatment simply multiplying litigation with no justification whatsoever. In (2006) 2 SCC 747 (State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha) it has been held at Paragraaph-29 as follows:- “29. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently………” Similar view has been take in (2006) 9 SCC 406, (K.T. Veerappa v. State of Karnataka ) at Paragraph- 16 as follows:- “16. The defence of the State Government that as the appellants were not the petitioners in the writ petition filed by 23 employees of the respondent University to whom the benefit of revised pay scales was granted by the Court, the appellants are estopped from raising their claim of revised pay scales in the year 1992-94, is wholly unjustified, patently irrational, arbitrary and discriminatory. As noticed in the earlier part of this judgment, revised pay scales were given to those 23 employees in the year 1991 when the contempt proceedings were initiated against the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the University of Mysore. The benefits having been given to 23 employees of the University in compliance with the decision dated 21-6-1989 recorded by the learned Single Judge in WPs Nos. 21487-506 of 1982, it was expected that without 4 resorting to any of the methods the other employees identically placed, including the appellants, would have been given the same benefits, which would have avoided not only unnecessary litigation but also the movement of files and papers which only waste public time.” The impugned order dated 22.1.2008 is accordingly set aside. The petitioners are held entitled to be given the same benefits as that granted by the writ Court as extracted above. Let this order be complied with within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)