IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16384 of 2004 ***** Gupteshwar Sharan Jamuar son of Late Rajnath Sahay resident of Mangala Bhawan, Mahadeopuri, P.S. Gardanibagh, District-Patna. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Accountant General of Bihar, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. 4. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. 5. The Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. 6. The Chief Engineer, Irrigation Research and Training Institute, Khagaul, Patna. 7. The Additional Director, Irrigation Research and Training Institute, Khagaul, Patna. …. …. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. P.N.Pathak, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gautam Kumar Yadav, A.C. to Standing Counsel-IV -------- 5. 29.1.2009. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.2.2004 contained in Annexure-1, which has been issued by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Research and Training Institute, Khagaul, Patna. The effect of the order contained in Annexure-1 is reducing the pension of the petitioner from Rs.3880/- to Rs.3625/-. It has been contended in the writ application and also submitted at the Bar by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 cannot be allowed to stand in view of the fact that an earlier action of the respondents of taking away the benefit of senior scale as well as the first time bound promotion was decisively interfered with in an earlier writ application filed by the petitioner. The writ application in question was C.W.J.C. No. 1731 of 2000. The order of the High Court is dated 25.9.2002 and has also been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the writ - 2 - application. The writ application was allowed in favour of the petitioner and the orders adverse to the interest of the petitioner were also quashed. Thereafter status-quo ante was restored by the Chief Engineer and an order in this regard also came to be issued in favour of the petitioner. This fact is also corroborated in the narration of things and is borne out from the reading of impugned Annexure-1. The problem arose when the file of the petitioner was finally forwarded to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar. He raised certain objections based on a notification issued by the Finance Department which is letter No.660 dated 8.2.1999. The objection of the Commissioner had the effect of putting the petitioner back to where he had started from. Contention of the petitioner, therefore, is that the net effect of the order contained in Annexure-1 is relegating him to the position where he all started from despite a judicial order having been passed in his favour. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner had filed a few contempt applications when the decision to take back the benefit of promotion was taken earlier but the Court did not entertain the same but allowed the petitioner to file a detailed representation and may be challenge the order if it is not palatable to him thereafter. It is in this background that the present writ application came to be filed again when the so-called reasoned order has been passed. It is further urged on behalf of the State that the objection raised by the Commissioner of the Department was on the reading of the Finance Department’s letter No.660 dated 8.2.1999 and whatever position having - 3 - emerged the objection was rightly made. But on a pointed question put to the learned counsel for the State whether the earlier order contained in Annexure-2 passed by the High Court by the learned Single Judge was ever questioned before any higher forum the answer is a categorical no. In other words, the decision of the learned Single Judge attained finality. Based on the decision of the High Court, the status-quo ante in favour of the petitioner was restored when the benefit of the judgment has already accrued to the petitioner an objection by the Commissioner or an innovation to overcome an uncomfortable judgment cannot be allowed by this Court. There are set judicial procedures which must be adopted by the State in such matters. Even if the Commissioner was of the opinion that the judgment of the Court was incorrect for whatever reason he could have still preferred a L.P.A. or at least filed a review application explaining the circumstances, but the Court shall not encourage an executive authority to innovate in this manner and take away benefit of judgment which has accrued in favour of a litigant. The above reasoning is the primary reason why the Court wants to interfere with the Annexure-1, which is not tenable in the above explained circumstances. The writ application is allowed. Annexure-1 dated 23.2.2004 is quashed. Respondents are directed now to settle the retiral dues of the petitioner. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)