IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12697 of 2009 SMT.CHANDRA PRABHA KUMARI &ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioners :M/s Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, Arun Kumar Mandal and B.S.Mishra, Advocates Foir the State : SC 20 with Mr Priyank Samdarshi, AC to SC 20 -------- 2. 07.10.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. The reliefs sought in the writ application is for grant of pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- with effect from 1.1.1996 in lieu of that granted in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-. The submission is that the petitioners were appointed as Junior Accounts Clerk on compassionate ground on various dates details whereof are mentioned at Para 4 of the application. The initial appointment was in the pay scale of Rs. 975-1540/- which was replaced by the scale of Rs. 1200-1800/- while it should have been correctly re-fixed at Rs.1400-2300/-. On account of this wrong fixation the revised pay scale with effect from 1.1.1996 was likewise erroneously fixed and thus the present claim. It is submitted that the petitioners have submitted a representation on 5.9.2002 and which remains pending till date even while the same benefits has been granted to two persons working with them whose names are mentioned in Para 8 of the writ application. It is further contended that the issue has also been adjudicated by this Court in CWJC No. 5701 of 2004 disposed on 3.5.2005 at Annexure 1 to the writ application. This Court 2 has held that persons like the petitioners appointed as Junior Accounts Clerk on compassionate grounds prior to demerger be adjusted in the higher pay scale and after demerger were entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/-. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the authorities are now required to examine the representation in light of the orders of this Court. He fairly acknowledges that if the petitioners are similarly situated they may be entitled to get similar treatment unless there be grounds to distinguish them from those granted benefits. When a Court of law pronounces on an issue of law it applies to all similarly situated on facts and there should be no need for the individual to approach the High Court for individual orders. Unfortunately this settled law emphasised even by the Apex Court, and the manner in which notwithstanding the same, the State generates litigation by asking individual litigants to obtain individual orders is manifest in the present case. Once this Court decided the issue in 2005 as an employer in a welfare State, the State should have the magnamity to accord similar treatment to all entitled to the same if otherwise satisfied without requiring the individual orders to be obtained. The State only multiplies litigation. This writ petition is disposed with a direction to the authorities to decide the representation of the petitioners in light of the orders of this Court in CWJC No. 5701 of 2004 within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or 3 production of a copy of this order before the concerned respondents. If the respondents are otherwise satisfied that the petitioners are similarly situated they shall be obliged to accord similar treatment to the present petitioners also. However if the respondents be of the opinion that the petitioners are not similarly situated they shall furnish such materials and grounds to the petitioners in writing, grant them personal hearing and thereafter proceed to pass a reasoned order on the grounds of difference distinguishing them from the order of this Court in CWJC No. 5701 of 2004 to hold that they were not entitled to similar treatment. The writ petition stands disposed off. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)