IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13156 of 2010 DINESH SHARMA, S/O- LATE BASUDEO SHARMA, AT+P.O.- PAINAL, P.S.- BIHTA, DISTRICT- PATNA. AT PRESENT POSTED AS P.A. TO PERSONNEL SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD PATNA:--PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD 6, MANGALS ROAD, PATNA. 2. SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD 6, MANGALS ROAD, PATNA. 3. CHIEF ENGINEER, BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD 6, MANGALS ROAD, PATNA. 4. ADVISOR, BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD 6, MANGALS ROAD, PATNA :--- RESPONDENTS. ----------- FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. RAJENDRA SHARMA, ADVOCATE. FOR THE HOUSING BOARD : 3. 06.09.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Bihar State Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”). 2. Petitioner was promoted as Senior Personal Assistant and drew salary in the scale admissible to Senior Personal Assistant. Later, after recasting of the seniority list, the promotion allowed to him on the post of Senior Personal Assistant was cancelled under order bearing Memo No. 2992 dated 25.7.2007 and the difference of salary of the scale admissible to Senior Personal Assistant and the Personal Assistant has been recovered from him. The writ petition challenging the reversion order has also been dismissed. By filing this writ petition petitioner is contending that one Sachchidanand Singh who was also allowed promotion on the post of Senior Personal Assistant together with the - 2 - petitioner and his promotion was also cancelled along with him and that Sachichidanand Singh has been placed at Serial No. 6, below the petitioner who is at Serial No. 2 of Order No. 2145 dated 15.4.2006, Annexure-4. Till date, however, the difference of salary has not been recovered from Sri Sachichidanand Singh, in the circumstances, the amount recovered from the petitioner should also be paid. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner never misrepresented before the authorities for earning the promotion on the post of Senior Personal Assistant and he having served as Senior Personal Assistant the amount paid to him should not have been recovered. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 475. In this connection, petitioner has also filed representation dated 24.5.2010 which is contained in Annexure-2 series to this application in which petitioner has categorically stated that he served the Board as Senior Personal Assistant and the difference of salary of the Personal Assistant and the Senior Personal Assistant which has been - 3 - recovered from him should be refunded to him as the said amount has not been recovered from similarly situate Sachchidanand Singh. Different treatment to similarly situate persons tantamounts to infracting Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the Board, I dispose of the writ petition directing the Managing Director to consider the request of the petitioner to refund the difference of salary of the post of Personal Assistant and Senior personal Assistant which has been recovered from him as such promotion was given to the petitioner not on account of any misrepresentation by him but by the authorities of the Board itself on the basis of the seniority list as it existed in the Board at the relevant time. Let the Managing Director consider the request of the petitioner contained in representation dated 24.5.2010, Annexure-2 series in the light of the observation and direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir (Supra) as early as possible, in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)