JUDGMENT : 1. With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing. They have no complaint whatsoever about any audio and video quality. 2. The instant appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 14.05.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 227 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the decision of the State authority as contained in Memo No. 8770(S) dated 10.12.2014 has been quashed holding the writ-petitioner/respondent entitled for pay scale of Rs. 2610-3540. 3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading which require to be enumerated read as hereunder: The writ-petitioner/respondent was appointed on Class- IV post in the year 1980. He was granted first time bound promotion in the pay scale of Rs. 800-1150. In terms of recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Committee, the pay scale of Rs. 800-1150 was revised by resolution dated 08.02.1999 in the pay scale of Rs. 2610-3540. The writ-petitioner/respondent along with other persons were not granted the aforesaid benefit. Some of the aggrieved persons preferred writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 4041 of 2001 and vide order dated 25.02.2003 the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition with a direction that the writ-petitioners are entitled to get the pay scale of Rs. 2610-3540 in place of pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200. The State of Jharkhand had challenged the aforesaid order in Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No. 92 of 2005 but was dismissed on 26.04.2006. Being aggrieved by the said order, the State of Jharkhand had filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court which also stood dismissed on 16.11.2017 and again being aggrieved by the said order, State had filed a review petition being Review Petition (Civil) No. 615 of 2009 and on 23.07.2009, the same also stood dismissed on merits and on the ground of delay also. The writ-petitioner/respondent approached to this Court as the dispute was set at rest after the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 4041 of 2001 had attained its finality fixing the pay scale of Rs. The writ-petitioner/respondent approached to this Court as the dispute was set at rest after the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 4041 of 2001 had attained its finality fixing the pay scale of Rs. 2610-3540, as such, the writ-petitioner/respondent also claimed the same benefit on the ground that he is similarly situated and when no action was taken, this writ-petitioner/respondent has preferred a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 495 of 2013 which was disposed of on 18.07.2013 by directing the authority to decide the claim of the writ-petitioner/respondent and in turn thereof, a decision was taken but the claim of the writ-petitioner/respondent has been rejected vide Memo No. 8770(S) dated 10.12.2014. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the writ-petitioner/respondent has again moved to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 227 of 2016 and the learned Single Judge of this Court after taking into consideration the fact about the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 4041 of 2001, having attained its finality up to the level of Hon'ble Apex Court as also the order passed by another learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 495 of 2013 wherein the case of the writ-petitioner/respondent has been found to be identical to those petitioners whose case were decided in W.P. (S) No. 4041 of 2001, has allowed the writ petition, which is the subject matter of the instant intra-court appeal. 4. Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned SC-III (Mines) appearing for the State of Jharkhand has submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed gross error in passing the order without taking into consideration the implication of resolution dated 08.02.1999. In the said resolution it has been decided to abolish the existing facilities of Time Bound Promotions and Selection Grades, discussed in Paras 10 and 12 of FD. Resolution No. 6021 dated 18.12.1989 and they shall cease to be applicable with effect from 01.01.1996 and thereafter in the existing pay scales. If any such promotion, however, is due under the Rules before 01.01.1996, it shall be given and the payment of arrears in the existing scale shall be made only upto 31.12.1995 after which the promotion would be deemed to have been automatically terminated. While fixing pay in the revised scales, such promotions given after 31.12.1995 will not be taken into consideration. While fixing pay in the revised scales, such promotions given after 31.12.1995 will not be taken into consideration. If such promotions have been given after 31.12.1995 then the question of adjustment of such additional emoluments obtained in the process will be decided after the Fitment Committee submits its recommendations on promotion policy. According to the learned counsel, as per the aforesaid resolution the pay scale which the writ-petitioner/respondent is claiming, i.e., Rs. 2610-3540, is not admissible to him rather the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200 is admissible, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the writ-petitioner/respondent has submitted by referring to the checkered history of this case wherein the case of similarly situated employees has been considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4041 of 2001 and a specified direction was passed upon the respondents to fix the pay scale of the writ-petitioners at Rs. 2610-3540 and the said order was challenged in Division Bench of this Court in intra-court appeal but the same was dismissed as also by the Hon'ble Apex Court by dismissal of the special leave to petition and subsequently the review petition. According to him, once the issue about claiming of the aforesaid pay scale pertaining to other similarly situated employees has been adjudicated and attained finality, there is no reason to deny such claim to the writ-petitioner/respondent otherwise it will hit the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that prior to this another writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 495 of 2013 was filed as has been appended as Annexure-10 wherein another learned Single Judge of this Court after taking into consideration the decision of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4041 of 2001 and its affirmation up to the level of Hon'ble Apex Court as also considering the stand of the State in the counter affidavit, came to the conclusive finding about the claim of the writ-petitioner/respondent to the pay scale of Rs. 2610-3540 to be genuine and accordingly, passed an order for disbursement of arrears of salary but the respondent-authorities, the appellants herein, in a highly arbitrary manner had rejected the claim of the writ-petitioner/respondent without taking into consideration the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 4041 of 2001 and the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 495 of 2013 and taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter the learned Single Judge had quashed and set aside the administrative decision of the authority and as such, the same suffers from no infirmity. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants about the applicability of the resolution dated 08.02.1999 is concerned, submission has been made that the said resolution has been considered by the learned Single Judge as would appear from the order dated 25.02.2003 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4041 of 2001 and the said order having been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, there is no reason to apply the said resolution only in the case of the writ-petitioner/respondent while extending the benefit to the other similarly situated persons. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record and the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. This Court, before scrutinizing the legality and propriety of the impugned order, deem it fit and proper to refer certain undisputed facts in this case. The lis involved in this case is about entitlement of the writ-petitioner/respondent on the pay scale of Rs. 2610-3540 which is being denied on the basis of the resolution dated 08.02.1999. The same issue fell for consideration before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4041 of 2001 wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court while allowing the writ petition vide order dated 25.02.2003 had considered the entire aspect of the matter and had also considered the resolution dated 08.02.1999 and thereafter the writ petition was allowed by holding the petitioners entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 2610-3540. For ready reference, paragraphs-4, 5, 6 and 7 of the said order is being reproduced hereunder: “4. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to Schedule-III of the said resolution and submitted that the pay scale of the orderly peons was Rs. 775-1025/- which correspondence to the revised pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200/-. 2610-3540. For ready reference, paragraphs-4, 5, 6 and 7 of the said order is being reproduced hereunder: “4. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to Schedule-III of the said resolution and submitted that the pay scale of the orderly peons was Rs. 775-1025/- which correspondence to the revised pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200/-. Paragraph 11 of the said resolution by which the pay scale of the Government employees has been revised is worth to be quoted herein-below: “The State Government have decided to abolish the existing facilities of Time Bound Promotions and Selection Grades, discussed in Paras 10 and 12 of FD. Resolution No. 6021 dated 18th December, 1989 and they shall cease to be applicable with effect from 1st January, 1996 and thereafter in the existing pay scales. If any such promotion, however, is due under the Rules before 1st January, 1996, it shall be given and the payment of arrears in the existing scale shall be made only upto 31st December, 1995 after which the promotion would be deemed to have been automatically terminated. While fixing pay in the revised scales, such promotions given after 31st December, 1995 will not be taken into consideration. If such promotions have been given after 31st December, 1995 then the question of adjustment of such additional emoluments obtained in the process, will be decided after the Fitment Committee submits its recommendations on promotion polity. Promotion to any vacancy of a post identified as need based post would be admissible. The procedure for identification of such need based posts has been out in paragraph 12.” 5. From bare perusal of the aforesaid paragraph, it is clear that any time bound promotion given to the employees prior to January, 1996 shall not be affected by the subsequent resolution of the Government. 6. As noticed above, admittedly the petitioners were given time bound promotion in 1991 and 1993 and they were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 800-1150/-. In my opinion, therefore, they are entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 2610-3540/-. The action of the respondents, therefore, in fixing the pay scale of the petitioners at Rs. 2550-3200/- is arbitrary and without any basis. 7. For the aforesaid reason, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order of fixation of the petitioners’ pay is set aside. 2610-3540/-. The action of the respondents, therefore, in fixing the pay scale of the petitioners at Rs. 2550-3200/- is arbitrary and without any basis. 7. For the aforesaid reason, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order of fixation of the petitioners’ pay is set aside. It is directed that the petitioners shall be entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 2610-3540/-.” 7. The aforesaid order was challenged in intra-court appeal being L.P.A. No. 92 of 2005 but was dismissed vide order dated 26.04.2006. The State-appellant had preferred special leave petition which was also dismissed. The State has again preferred a review petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court but the same was also dismissed. The respondent-State of Jharkhand extended the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 2610-3540 in favour of the petitioners of W.P. (S) No. 4041 of 2001. The writ-petitioner/respondent has thereafter came to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 495 of 2013 and another learned Single Judge of this Court by taking into consideration the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P. (S) No. 4041 of 2001, has passed an order for payment of arrears of salary by deciding the claim of the petitioners as would appear from paragraphs-7 and 8 of the aforesaid order. For ready reference, the same is being reproduced hereunder: “7. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submits that since the proposal was sent to the Finance Department in the year, 2006 itself however, as necessary instruction has not been received from the Finance Department, the fixation of pay-scale of the petitioners has not been done. He further submits that since the Department of Finance is not made party here, this issue may not be decided by this Court. 8. A perusal of the documents on record indicates that this Court by order dated 25.02.2003 has already decided that the employees in W.P. (S) No. 4041 of 2001 were entitled for the benefit of revised pay scale of Rs. 2610-3540/- and in the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, respondents have not denied that the petitioners are not identically situated to the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 4041 of 2001, which was allowed by order dated 25.02.2003. 2610-3540/- and in the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, respondents have not denied that the petitioners are not identically situated to the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 4041 of 2001, which was allowed by order dated 25.02.2003. This has also not been denied by them that by the Office Order Dated 18.12.2009, the benefit of recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Committee has been extended to the identically situated persons. The only stand taken by the respondents is that since the proposal was sent to the Finance Department in the year 2006 itself, and necessary instruction has not been received from the Finance Department, therefore, the pay scale of the petitioners has not been revised. I am of a considered opinion that such a stand taken by the respondents is not justified. It was upon to the respondents to seek instruction after the proposal was sent to the Finance Department which admittedly has not been done in this case. The petitioners have been deprived of their lawful dues on account of inaction on the part of the respondents and therefore, the respondents are directed to decide the claim of the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today and pay all the arrears of salary etc. as admissible in law, within a period of further four weeks.” 8. The claim of the writ-petitioner/respondent has been decided in terms of the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 495 of 2013 but the same was rejected vide impugned order as has been annexed in the supplementary affidavit filed on 09.03.2016. We have gone across the aforesaid order and has found therefrom that the administrative authorities have considered the case of the writ petitioner/respondent treating it a fresh claim without making any reference of the order passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4041 of 2001 having attained finality up to the level of Hon'ble Apex Court. 9. We have gone across the aforesaid order and has found therefrom that the administrative authorities have considered the case of the writ petitioner/respondent treating it a fresh claim without making any reference of the order passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4041 of 2001 having attained finality up to the level of Hon'ble Apex Court. 9. The question arises that when the learned Single Judge while passing order in W.P. (S) No. 495 of 2013 had discussed each and every aspect of the matter including the order passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4041 of 2001, the order passed in intra-court appeal being L.P.A. No. 92 of 2005 as also the reference of dismissal of SLP, then will it be said to be proper action on the part of the State authority in taking action against the writ petitioner/respondent without taking into consideration the order passed by the writ Court in W.P. (S) No. 4041 of 2001 having attained finality up to the level of Hon'ble Apex Court. Further, even the learned Single Judge while passing order in W.P. (S) No. 495 of 2013 had directed the State Authority to decide the claim and to pay the arrears. The action which ought to have been taken by the concerned competent authority in extending the said benefit in favour of the writ petitioner/respondent otherwise the respondent-authority would have preferred appeal questioning the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 495 of 2013 but having not done so it is not available to the State-appellant to act contrary to the observation made by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 495 of 2013. We are not saying that the State authority is compulsorily required to comply the direction rather option is available to assail the same but if not assailed, it would be incumbent on their part to obey the direction passed by the Court of Law. This Court in W.P. (S) No. 495 of 2013 had passed order discussing each and every aspect of the matter including the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 4041 of 2001 but without taking into consideration that aspect of the matter, the administrative authority has rejected the claim of the writ petitioner/respondent treating the said consideration to be a fresh one. 10. 10. The other question is about the applicability of the resolution dated 08.02.1999 but the question is that the said resolution has been considered by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 4041 of 2001 basis upon which the benefits have already been granted in favour of the petitioners of the said writ petition then why the said relief will not be provided to the writ-petitioner/respondent herein. Will it not be treated to be discriminatory since submission has been made that save and except the writ petitioner all the similarly situated employees have been extended with the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 2610-3540. It is also not that the issue of illegality perpetuated will come because whatever benefit has been given in favour of the petitioners of W.P. (S) No. 4041 of 2001 that is in terms of the order passed by the constitutional court, i.e. the High Court, wherein the order has been passed allowing the writ petition in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that too the said order has been affirmed in the intra-court appeal as also under Article 136 of the Constitution of India by dismissal of special leave petition and subsequent thereto, the review petition has also been dismissed, therefore, denial of the claim of the writ petitioner/respondent in such a circumstances will be treated to be discriminatory and if the learned Single Judge by taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter has quashed and set aside the order dated 10.12.2014 contained in Memo No. 8770(S), the same according to our view, the same cannot be said to suffer from error. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the instant appeal lacks merit, accordingly, the same stands dismissed. 11. At this juncture, learned counsel for the State-appellant has submitted that this order may not be treated to be precedence otherwise everyone will approach before the authority or the Court of law for fixation of pay scale even though the contrary decision is under resolution dated 08.02.1999. 11. At this juncture, learned counsel for the State-appellant has submitted that this order may not be treated to be precedence otherwise everyone will approach before the authority or the Court of law for fixation of pay scale even though the contrary decision is under resolution dated 08.02.1999. This Court, after considering the aforesaid submission, is of the view that the order passed in this case is to the effect that this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4041 of 2001 had already passed an order with respect to the case of the similarly situated employees, as such, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, this order is being passed which should not be treated to be precedence. 12. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.