IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16525 of 2004 ANAND MURTI MALLIK SON OF LATE KRISHNADEO MALLIK RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AMTA, P.O. NAYAN DOHAT P.S. BAHERI DISTRICT DARBHANGA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE SCRETARY MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 4. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF-CUM-CO-ORDINATOR, TUBE WELL PROJECT, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, PATNA. ----------- 5 24/09/2010 Petitioner is seeking parity in matter of grant of monetary benefit with effect from 28.01.1980 as the petitioner along with large number of other persons were given benefit of promotion to the post of Accountant. Order of promotion is dated 5.6.1992 (annexure-1) but notionally this promotion was granted from 28.01.1980. The issue of grant of promotion as well as non grant of monetary benefit from the date the notional promotion was given became a subject matter of adjudication in Annexure-2. High Court in its decision dated 15.10.1998 in C.W.J.C. No. 39 of 1990 took cognizance of this fact and directed payment of monetary benefit with effect from 28.01.1980. Based on this - 2 - decision, petitioners of that writ application became beneficiaries but when the petitioner moved the respondents for some kind of relief, no decision was conveyed to him or the respondents did not oblige the petitioner by treating his case similar to the other persons who begot the benefit based on annexure-2. In the supplementary affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, petitioner has categorically stated that there are many a juniors to the petitioner who have been given monetary benefit from the date of promotion which is dated 28.01.1980 and not from the date of notification. This discrimination has not been satisfactorily explained by the respondents in their counter affidavit and the dichotomy remains till date. The only distinction can be that there was a clear order in favour of those petitioners in the writ application contained in annexure-2 whereas the case of the petitioner was still pending for adjudication all these years. The reasoning and the ratio laid down by the High Court in its order dated 15.10.1998 (annexure-2) also applies to the case of the petitioner. Petitioner - 3 - would be entitled to payment of monetary benefit from the date of notional promotion i.e. 28.01.1980 as has been the case of the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 39 of 1990. This Court finds no distinction between the case of those petitioners vis-à-vis the present petitioner. This writ application is allowed with a direction upon the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Coordinator, Tube Well Project, Minor Irrigation Department, Patna (respondent no. 4) to take necessary steps to extend necessary benefits to the petitioner within a reasonable time frame. This writ application stands allowed in terms as above. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)