The importance of judicial discipline and the binding effect of judgments, even if they have been set aside by a higher court, on the later Bench of coordinate jurisdiction.

ORDER :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

The State of Jharkhand is in appeal against the order dated 21st March 2014 passed in W.P.(S) No.977 of 2012.

2. By the order dated 21st March 2014, the writ Court accepted the claim of the writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “respondent”) that he is entitled for the arrears of salary accrued on account of his substantive promotion with retrospective dates on the post of Deputy Director, Mines as well as Additional Director, Mines.

3. In the present appeal, the aforesaid order passed in W.P.(S) No.977 of 2012 was stayed by this Court by the order dated 13th March 2018.

4. Briefly stated, the respondent who was working on the post of District Mining Officer, Dumka was transferred and posted as Deputy Director, Mines by an order dated 15th December 1999. The respondent was given additional charge of the post of Additional Director, Mines by notification dated 31st July 2000 and he assumed charge of the said post which is evident through charge report dated 31st July 2000. The respondent was promoted on the post of Deputy Director, Mines w.e.f 15th November 2000 and on the post of Additional Director, Mines w.e.f 15th November 2004 with retrospective effect and thereafter he raised a claim for payment of difference of salary on the assertion that the post of Deputy Director was the next promotional post to the post of District Mining Officer and pursuant to the order dated 15th December 1999 he was given full fledged charge of the post of Deputy Director, Mines on which post he discharged duties and responsibilities of the said post. As regards additional charge given to him on the post of Additional Director, Mines, the respondent made similar assertions to claim salary admissible to the said post from the date he assumed additional charge on the post of Additional Director, Mines.

5. Before the writ Court, the respondent placed reliance on the judgment in W.P.(S) No.2986 of 2010 (titled “Jaiprakash Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.”) to lay support to his claim for payment of arrears of salary on account of difference in pay scale for the post of District Mining Officer, Deputy Director, Mines and Additional Director, Mines.

6. The State of Jharkhand placed reliance on Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of the Finance Rules to put forth its stand that a government servant is entitled to draw salary and other allowances attached to the post from the date he is promoted on such post and no financial benefit can be extended to the government servant from a retrospective date.

7. On a glance at the order dated 21st March 2014 passed in W.P.(S) No.977 of 2012, we gather that the writ Court placed complete reliance on the order dated 20th August 2013 passed in the case of “Jaiprakash Singh”.

8. The writ Court has recorded that: “in the wake of the aforesaid admitted facts, the issues raised in the present writ petition appears to have drawn attention of this Court in a similar matter, which was decided in the case of “Jaiprakash Singh” (supra) vide judgment dated 20th August 2013.”

9. The writ Court proceeded further and extracted relevant paragraphs from the judgment in “Jaiprakash Singh” to hold that the stand taken by the respondent-State to refuse the arrears of difference of salary to the post of Deputy Director, Mines w.e.f 15th November 2000 and Additional Director, Mines w.e.f 15th November 2004 was not sustainable in law and, accordingly, quashed the order dated 3rd February 2012 vide Annexure-12 to the writ petition by which claim of the respondent was refused by the respondent-State.

10. The judgment in “Jaiprakash Singh” was challenged by the State of Jharkhand in L.P.A No.162 of 2014 and by judgment dated 12th January 2015 the order passed in W.P.(S) No.2986 of 2010 (titled “Jaiprakash Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.”) has been set-aside by a Division Bench of this Court.

11. Mr. Kalyan Roy, the learned counsel for the respondent draws our attention to the order dated 17th