IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7730 of 2010 1. Tileshwar Rishideo S/O Late Kunti Sada R/O Vill.- Basantpur P.O. Sonepura, P.S. Simri Bakhtiyarpur Distt.- Saharsa, Presently Woring In The Office Of Assistant Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Purnea Circle 2. Yugal Paswan S/O Late Ghuran Paswan R/O Mohalla Pokhariya, P.O. & P.S. And Distt.- Begusarai, Presently Posted In The Office Of The Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Teghara Division, Darbhanga Circle 3. Dinesh Prasad Singh S/O Late Bihari Singh R/O Khuskibagh, P.O..............., P.S...................., Distt.- Purnea, Presently Posted In The Office Of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Forbesganj, Purnea Circle 4. Birendra Paswan S/O Late Anik Paswan R/O Vill.- Madanpur, P.O. Maheshpur, P.S. Gogri, Distt.- Khagaria, Presently Working In The Office Of Assistant Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes Purnea Circle 5. Birendra Ram S/O Late Panam Ram R/O Vill.- Dhodhanpatti, P.O. Golma P.S. Sour Bazar, Distt.- Saharsa, Presently Working In The Office Of Assistant Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Saharsa Circle 6. Muni Lal Paswan S/O Late Lakshmi Paswan R/O Vill.- Toygarh, P.O. Barbigha, P.S. Barbigha, Distt.- Sheikhpura, Presently Working In The Office Of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Khagaria Division 7. Arjun Sah S/O Late Ram Khelawan Sah R/O Vill.- Bengras Bishanpur P.O. Bagras P.S. Nav Kothi, Distt.- Begusarai, Presently Working In The Office Of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Khagaria Division 8. Chandeshwari Kamti S/O Late Phudi Kamt R/O Vill.- Hempur, P.O. Nauhatta, P.S. & Distt.- Saharsa, Presently Posted In The Office Of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Saharsa Circle 9. Shiv Narain Tanti S/O Sri Sakun Tanti R/O Vill.- Pramanpur P.O. Matrandha P.S. Madhepura (Old) Dhalarh (New) District Madhepura, Presently Posted In The Office Of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Saharsa Circle 10. Lalan Lohar S/O Late Bagru Lohar R/O Vill.- Shastri Nagar, P.O. Madhubani, P.S. K.Hat, Distt.- Purnia, Present Posted In The Office Of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Saharsa Circle 11. Paresh Chandra Das S/O Late Jyotindra Chandra Das R/O Vill.- Khari Mahim Gaon, P.O. Hafania, Via Beyasi P.S. Amaur Distt.- Purnia, Presently Working In 2 The Office Of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Kishanganj Division 12. Sone Lal Murmu S/O Late Kandan Murmu R/O Vill. And P.O. Rupaspur P.S. Mirganj Dhamdaha Distt.- Purnia, Presently Working In The Office Of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Kishanganj Division Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Commissioner, Sales Tax, Bihar, Patna 3. Joint Commissioner, Sales Tax, Purnea Division, Purnea ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Gyanand Roy, Adv. Mr. Bidhanesh Mishra, Adv. Mrs. Tanuja Kumari Mishra, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Abhay Shankar Jha, Adv. ----------------- 3. 29.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners seek the relief for confirmation of their services on Class-IV posts as also to grant them time bound promotion and A.C.P, as granted to persons similarly situated and stated to have been appointed with them in the same transaction. It is submitted that an advertisement was published in 1977-78 for appointment of Peons in the different Muffasil offices of the Finance Department (Sales Tax). The qualification required was the ability to read and write and be conversant with use of a bicycle. They faced a process of selection and came to be appointed on 14.7.1979 under the pen of the Joint Commissioner. Earlier on 12.7.1979 the Joint Commissioner had been delegated powers by the 3 Commissioner for making appointment on Class-III and Class-IV posts. Others similarly appointed have been given time bound promotion and also promotion to Grade-III, which includes persons junior to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that in this application he confines the relief to confirmation of service and grant of time bound promotion only. Others similarly situated litigated before this Court when the matter has attained finality in Civil Appeal No. 1597 of 2006 with the Supreme Court order on 6.3.2006 for confirmation in service and time bound promotion with back wages from January, 2002. Once the Supreme Court decided matters by a reasoned order, in fairness the respondents should have extended it to all concerned including the petitioner’s without awaiting them to obtain individual orders keeping mind their limited resources in status as Class-IV employees. Counsel for the State submits from the counter affidavit that the Joint Commissioner was vested the authority to make appointment only two days earlier which makes the appointments suspect. But suspicion is not proof. If the Joint Commissioner was in fact competent to make appointments, no 4 infirmity attaches to it on the ground that it was made two days after the vesting of power. The second objection with regard to roster clearance is for the respondents themselves to answer. The roster was to their knowledge, under their control and was required to be implemented by them. If someone in the house flouted Rules let him be ascertained first. The petitioners cannot be visited with the consequence even while the offender is allowed to go free. The third objection with regard to lack of vacancy appears to have been taken more as a formality with casualness and without accepting responsibility for the statements in the counter affidavit. No details of the sanctioned vacancies, the number of appointments made and how the appointment of the petitioners fell outside the sanctioned strength has been discussed or disclosed. If an Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Shree Gupteshwar Prasad has sworn the affidavit and states that he has read and understood the statements made in the writ application, surely he was expected to answer the assertion of the petitioners in Paragraphs 4 to 9 of the writ application with more precision and clarity. The next contention on behalf of the State is that those who may have approached this Court for 5 similar relief in C.W.J.C. No. 8141 of 1998 with a repeat application in C.W.J.C. No. 6176 of 2000 alleging non implementation followed by a Letters Patent Appeal to be concluded by the order of the Supreme Court form a class by themselves. The petitioners did not move before the Court in due time. They were fence sitters waiting and watching developments to decide what their course of action should be. This alone disentitles them to similar relief on ground of parity, as has been held by more than one judgment of the Apex Court as also this Court. The petitioners are Class-IV employees holding the post of Peon. They have been appointed in pursuance of a selection process after advertisement as far back as 1979. A person in Government service primarily looks forward to an increase in increments and promotions for job satisfaction. If promotion is to be denied at least financial stagnation is to be prevented by the State. The directive principles of State policy in the Constitution contain more than adequate provisions of the responsibility of the State in this regard which need not be reiterated here. To that extent the petitioners stand at par with their colleagues who has been granted the relief of confirmation and time bound promotion. But the 6 petitioners also stand to lose the benefit simply on basis of a claim on parity, being fence sitters. But the order of the Supreme Court was reasoned. Fairness required the respondents to suo motu accord similar treatment to all who were similarly situated at least from an appropriate date of their satisfaction after the orders of the Supreme Court rather than to await, generating litigation, by requiring each individual to obtain individual orders. It is therefore considered proper to mould the relief in the facts of the case. The petitioners are held entitled to similar relief of wages, confirmation, time bound promotion as granted to their colleagues by the Supreme Court but the actual monetary benefits shall be available to the petitioners from the date of the Supreme Court order that is 6.3.2006 only and not from any date prior thereto. The petitioners shall be at liberty to pursue the relief for A.C.P., if any, before the authorities. Let compliance be done with within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)