IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.658 of 2010 1. Brahma Chari Sharma S/O Late Rasik Lal Sharma R/O Vill.- Chitraur Kothi Matihani Road, P.S.+Town+Distt.- Begusarai Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Road Construction Deptt., Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Engineer-In-Chief, Road Construction Deptt., Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Additional Secretary, Road Construction Deptt., Govt. Of Bihar, Patna ---------------------------------- 3. 05.09.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was proceeded with departmentally in two separate proceedings with regard to construction of 13 roads and 9 roads respectively. The former resulted in a punishment dated 5.3.2008 for recovery of Rs. 1,51,661/- and stoppage of promotion for two years from the due date. The petitioner approached this Court in CWJC No. 1320 of 2000. By order dated 24.3.2006 the Court quashed the order of punishment. A separate order of punishment dated 26.11.1998 in respect of nine roads was passed directing recovery of Rs. 75.090/- and stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect and stoppage of promotion for three years from due date. On 7.6.2000 the respondents passed a composite order with regard to the petitioner and others. This order dealt with former punishment also subsequently quashed by the Court. But it also dealt with the subsequent punishment in respect of nine roads. One Ram Chandra Pd. Gupta at serial no. 2 of Clause 3 in the order dated 7.6.2000 approached this Court in CWJC No. 10310 of 2001. On 2 18.11.2003 this Court quashed the order. On 29.6.2004 the Department recalled the order of punishment dated 7.6.2000. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue of any punishment in respect of 13 roads achieved finality by orders of this Court in CWJC No. 1320 of 2000. The composite punishment for nine roads on 26.11.1998/7.6.2000 led to deductions from the petitioner. After the order of this Court in CWJC No. 10310 of 2001 preferred by Ram Chandra Pd. Gupta the respondents recalled the composite order dated 7.6.2000. The respondents then refunded the sum of Rs. 75,090/- to the petitioner as specifically asserted in para 13 of the writ petition. The punishment dated 26.11.1998 and 7.6.2000 were set at naught by the respondents themselves. The petitioner is not only entitled to the increments but is also entitled to consideration for promotion in accordance with law. The respondents are unfortunately treating the punishment dated 26.11.1998 to be still subsisting in so far as the petitioner is concerned. Counsel for the State submits that the order dated 29.6.2004 rescinding the punishment dated 7.6.2000 has to be read and understood in the background of the context in which it came to be passed. The petitioner had not challenged his order of punishment. The challenge was by Ram Chandra Pd. Gupta. If this Court quashed the order dated 7.6.2000 obviously the benefit has to be confined to Sri Gupta alone. The petitioner is not entitled to demand similarity in treatment as there would always be a difference between those who approached a Court of law and obtained relief and those who did not. The benefit of an order of the Court does not automatically confer benefit upon others who may not have approached the Court. 3 There can be no quarrel on the very broad preposition advanced on behalf of the respondents. The specific assertion of the petitioner in paragraph 13 of the writ application that after issuance of the order dated 29.6.2004 rescinding the punishment dated 7.6.2000, the respondents had refunded the sum of Rs. 75,090/- to him has not been denied in paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit. If the respondents by their own conduct have decided to extend the same benefit of the order of the Court to him also, they cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold by simultaneously urging that the benefit is not available to him as he was not a party to the proceedings. The counter affidavit is disappointing. The litigation could have been brought to an end with finality. The controversy shall continue because of a casual counter affidavit. The petitioner asserts from the documents annexed to the writ petition more particularly Annexures 7 & 8 that the amount of Rs. 75,090/- has been refunded to him. The Court however considers it proper to remand the matter to the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department for twin purpose. The Principal Secretary may himself examine this factual aspect, and if it be correct the issue shall stand closed with no subsisting punishment of the petitioner in context of the order of punishment dated 26.11.1998/7.6.2000 related to nine roads. Simultaneously the Court also expects the Principal Secretary to adequately take steps that in future the department is more careful while filing counter affidavits in a detailed manner to assist the Court. Let the Principal Secretary pass such orders within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.) 4