IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.394 of 2004 1. SURENDRA PRASAD SON OF LATE SHYAM NARAYAN PRASAD RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LODIPUR P.S. AND P.O. NALANDA DISTRICT NALANDA AT BIHARSHARIF AT PRESENT RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. K-201, P.C. COLONY, MOHALLA HANUMAN NAGAR, KANKARBAGH, PATNA -20. 2. YOGENDRA SINGH SON OF LATE NARSINGH NARAIN SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AMNAR, P.S. EKANGARSARAI, DISTRICT NALANDA. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner :- M/S. Rajendra Kishore Prasad & Vishwanath Prasad. For the State :- Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, S.C. XXI ------ 4 29/06/2010 Two petitioners came to be appointed as Junior Engineers way back in the year 1962 and 1960 respectively. They were granted regular promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers with effect from the due date which was worked out as 1.4.1980 and 27.12.1978, petitioner nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Petitioners came to be given the financial benefit of the promoted post vide notification no. 665 dated 1.3.1993 which is annexure-2 to the writ application. The benefit was to accrue from 22.2.1988. There were other litigations which are not very relevant but the reason for these petitioners to approach this Court is withholding of annual - 2 - increments from the date of promotion, which was 1.4.1980 and 27.12.1978 till 20.4.1993. Reason for withholding the annual increment was that the two petitioners had failed to pass departmental examination as was required under the Bihar Public Works Department Code. A very pointed submission is made by the learned counsel based on a decision dated 31.03.2005 which was rendered in a batch of writ applications in relation to similarly situated persons. Batch of writ applications were heard together and decided together as would be evident from perusal of annexure-25. After detailed consideration of submissions of the State and the petitioners the writ applications stood allowed and certain parameters came to be laid down in the concluding part of the said order. With regard to those petitioners relief was granted by the learned Single Judge but it did not satisfy the State authorities. They decided to test the veracity of the decision by filing L.P.As. which were registered as L.P.A. Nos. 580, 581 and 582 of 2006. Those L.P.As. were dismissed upholding the decision of the learned Single Judge. Consequence thereof was a notification dated 22.6.2007 issued by the State government - 3 - giving the benefit to those petitioners as would be evident from perusal of annexure-27. Case of the present petitioners is that they are similarly situated. Reasons given by the State are identical, the veracity of which has already been decided in yet another judicial proceeding. In that view of the matter the present petitioners should also be treated similarly by this Court. There can hardly be any dispute on this aspect on behalf of the State because orders contained in annexures 25, 26 and 27 do bear and support the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners. If in an identical situation other petitioners have come to be granted relief by the Court, then there is no reason why these petitioners should also not enjoy the same benefit in the matter of service condition. For the reasons noted above, the case of the present petitioners being no different than the case of Mangaldeo Singh and others, this writ application is allowed with a direction upon the respondents that the petitioners would also be given the benefit of annual increments in the light of the parameters laid down in the case of Mangaldeo Singh and - 4 - others contained in Annexure-25 to the present writ application. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)