JUDGMENT : In WP(S) No. 6849 of 2017, the writ petitioners made the following prayer: “For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions upon the respondents/appellants to refix their pay on 01.01.1996 in revised pay scale introduced by the State Government, vide resolution no. 2315 dated 20.08.2007 after adding amount of interim relief and teaching allowance in respect of respondent/petitioner no. 3 to 5, in the light of government letter no. 2728 dated 26.09.2007 issued under signature of Secretary to the Government, Department of School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi as their pay in revised pay scale has been fixed on 01.01.1996 without adding the amount of teaching allowance and interim relief by the Appellants/Respondents.” 2. Before the writ Court, the petitioners relied on Resolution No.179 dated 22.12.1981, Resolution No.6022 dated 18.12.1989, Resolution No.237 dated 20.02.1990, Resolution No.4294 dated 25.08.1995, Resolution No.4382 dated 02.08.1997, Resolution No.5043 dated 07.08.1998, Resolution No. 660 dated 8.02.1999, Resolution No.2315 dated 20.08.2007, Resolution No.2863 dated 01.12.2008 and Resolution No. 2956 dated 22.09.2009. 3. The State of Jharkhand took a stand before the writ Court that claim of the writ petitioners was barred under Circular dated 18th August 2008 but the learned writ Court did not accept the State's stand, merely by observing that “the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is not acceptable to this Court, a law has been laid down, considering each and every aspect of the matter”. The writ Court further observed that the issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in CWJC No.2897 of 2005 and the same view has been reiterated in WP(S) No. 5419 of 2014 and in catena of decisions. 4. WP(S) No. 6849 of 2017 was listed before the Court for the first time on 5th December 2017. On that day, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners made a submission before the Court that the issue involved in the writ petition was squarely covered by the orders passed in WP(S) No. 3986 of 2017 and 4284 of 2016. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners further submitted that the order passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in CWJC No.2897 of 2005 is also on the same issue. However, the learned State counsel sought two weeks' time for filing counter-affidavit. 5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners further submitted that the order passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in CWJC No.2897 of 2005 is also on the same issue. However, the learned State counsel sought two weeks' time for filing counter-affidavit. 5. Thereafter, the writ petition was listed on 15th January 2018, 29th January 2018 and 7th February 2018 but for one or the other reason hearing in the writ petition was adjourned. The writ petition was next listed in the Court on 14th February 2008 and on that day in terms of order passed in WP(S) No. 4284 of 2016 the prayers made by the writ petitioners in WP(S) No. 6849 of 2017 were granted by the Court. 6. In the order dated 14th February 2018, the learned writ Court has observed as under: “After advancing his arguments, Mr. Bhanu Kumar, learned counsel draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-12 to the writ petition wherein petitioner has enclosed order dated 21.04.2017, passed in W.P.(S) No. 4284 of 2016. Learned counsel further draws the attention of this Court towards Annexure 14 series to the rejoinder affidavit, wherein the petitioner has enclosed order dated 07.11.2017, passed in W.P.(S) No. 3986 of 2017 and order dated 04.12.2017, passed in W.P.(S) No.6702 of 2017 and submits that in these cases, similar issue has been decided by this Court and as such, this writ petition may also be disposed of in similar terms. On the other hand, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that one Circular dated 18.08.2008 issued by the Director, Secondary Education, debars the petitioners from availing the benefits of interim relief and teaching allowances in pay fixation and in compliance thereof, the respondents have rightly not given the said benefits to the petitioners. Be that as it may, having gone through the submissions of the parties, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is not acceptable to this Court, a law has been laid down, considering each and every aspect of the matter. The issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in CWJC No. 2897 of 2005. The same view has been reiterated by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 5419/2014 and in catena of decisions. The issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in CWJC No. 2897 of 2005. The same view has been reiterated by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 5419/2014 and in catena of decisions. The issue is now no more res integra, the respondents cannot take any benefit of the circular dated 18.08.2008 issued by the State of Bihar at this juncture. In the circumstances, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of order passed in W.P.(S) No. 4284 of 2016 as case of the petitioners herein is found to be same and similar to the petitioners therein. Petitioners are entitled for re-fixation of their salary in revised pay scales with effect from 01.01.1996 after quantifying the amount of interim relief and teaching allowance in view of Letter No. 2728, dated 26.09.2007. The respondents are directed to make entire payments with all consequential benefits to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 7. In the aforesaid consideration by the writ Court, we observe that there is no indication in the order dated 14th February 2018 what was the issue involved in CWJC No.2897 of 2005 or for that matter in WP(S) No. 5419 of 2014. We do not find any indication in the said order which are those catena of decisions by which the issue involved in WP(S) No. 6849 of 2017 has been settled by the Court and the said issue is now no longer res integra. Without distinguishing Circular dated 18th August 2008, not even adverting to the said circular, the writ Court proceeded to grant relief as sought in the writ petition. 8. The writ Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is required to satisfy itself whether sufficient materials were brought on record to grant relief as sought for by the petitioners. The discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are exercised by the writ Courts not on mere filing of the writ petition rather the petitioner before the Court is required to satisfy the Court that he was entitled for the relief as sought in the writ petition. Not only that, in appropriate cases the writ Court may decline to grant relief. Not only that, in appropriate cases the writ Court may decline to grant relief. No doubt a government employee has a statutory right to seek promotion, benefit of revised pay scale, financial upgradation etc. but then the writ Court must be cautious of the cascading effect that may ensue and affect the whole cadre or atleast few if unmerited claims without proper foundation in the pleadings are allowed. 9. We have examined the order passed by the learned writ Court in this Letters Patent Appeal and are satisfied that there is no consideration by the learned writ Court as regards various circulars, notifications and orders on which the respondents herein placed reliance before the writ Court. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, order dated 14th February 2018 passed in WP(S) No.6849 of 2017 is set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned writ Court for fresh adjudication on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 11. Registry shall post the writ petition before Hon'ble jurisdictional Court.