IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9333 of 2006 RAMNI MOHAN PANDIT Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.3917 of 2005 ASHOK KUMAR MAHTO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For Petitioners: Mr Praveen Kumar For State : Standing Counsel Nos 23 and 10 ------ 2. 07.05.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State in both the writ applications. The relief prayed for in both the applications today is only for grant of salary for the period between 27.4.1985 to 2.12.1992, the period when they were wrongly kept out of service by termination which came to be set aside by this Court in CWJC No. 2296 of 1985 by judgment and order dated 25.8.1995. Learned Counsel submits that by order dated 27.4.1985 the petitioners along with others were terminated from service. In the writ application as aforesaid they were reinstated in service. Persons situated like the petitioners came to this Court in CWJC No. 7320 of 1996 with the claim that despite their reinstatement they were being denied salary for the period that they had been kept out of service by order of termination which was set aside by this Court. This Court by judgment and order dated 27.10.1999 allowed the claim and directed to pay arrears of salary to the petitioners therein. More recently a Bench of this Court in a judgment reported in 2006 (3) PLJR 365 (Ratan Kumar Sharma Vrs State of Bihar & ors) relying upon the orders passed in CWJC No. 7320 of 1996 in respect of certain others who were likewise terminated, has held that they are entitled to salary for the period they were kept out of service. Learned Counsel for the State objected to submit that the order on the writ petition has not been brought on record to demonstrate if there was any direction for payment of back wages. There is another aspect of the matter. The petitioners in CWJC No. 7320 of 1996 came promptly to the High Court soon after their order of termination was set aside in 1995. To that extent the case of the present petitioners is distinguishable from that of the petitioners in CWJC No. 7320 of 1996. However this Court finds it difficult to deny relief to the petitioners on those grounds. Both in CWJC No. 7320 of 1996 and Ratan Kumar Sharma (Supra) in which the order of termination was set aside there is no reference to any order for back wages at the time of directing reinstatement. This Court proceeded on the premise that since the termination order was set aside and reinstatement was directed, they were ipso facto entitled to salary for the period that they were kept out of service. Today in a writ petition arising from the common facts this Court finds it difficult to entertain this plea of the respondents in the aforesaid background. For the same reason in view of the pronouncement in Ratan Kumar Sharma (Supra) this Court again finds it difficult to throw out the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner came to this Court nearly ten years after the orders passed initially in a case of similar nature. To this Court, to throw out the writ petition on the aforesaid grounds would be improper as consistency is the hallmark of judicial system. To discriminate by a judicial order shall not be doing justice more particularly when similar relief has been granted recently in Ratan Kumar Sharma (Supra).This Court therefore in light of the aforesaid two orders of this Court, in order to maintain consistency like wise directs that arrears of salary for the period in question be paid to the petitioners within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ applications stand disposed off with the directions indicated above. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)