Rate revision for Windows-platform data entry applies retrospectively; contrary implementation restrictions are invalid.

The petitioner, a data-entry agency, sought directions against the respondents concerning revision and payment of its bills for land-record data-entry work carried out pursuant to the Agreement dated 30 September 2009.

The reliefs included implementation of the revised rate directed by the Principal Secretary, Revenue, through Letter No. 1928 dated 7 December 2012; payment of outstanding dues; calculation of kilobytes according to the UNIX platform; interest at 2% per month on delayed payments; idle-time charges; compensation; and GST-related payments.

During the hearing, both parties submitted that the controversy was covered by the same Bench’s earlier judgment dated 3 March 2025 in M/s Panchsheel Softwares v. The State of Bihar & Ors., C.W.J.C. No. 18918 of 2013, involving an identical issue.

The earlier judgment had quashed Letter No. 618 dated 26 March 2013 to the extent that it restricted the applicability of Letter No. 1928 dated 7 December 2012 and had directed implementation of the revised rates, along with interest on delayed payments.

Whether the petitioner’s claim concerning revision of rates and payment for data-entry work was governed by the principles laid down in the earlier judgment in M/s Panchsheel Softwares v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to implementation of Letter No. 1928 dated 7 December 2012, including payment of interest on delayed bills, in accordance with the earlier judgment.

The Court applied the principle that an issue already adjudicated between the same parties on identical facts may be disposed of in accordance with the earlier binding decision of the Court.

It relied on the earlier judgment holding that Letter No. 618 dated 26 March 2013 lacked legal validity insofar as it limited the operation of Letter No. 1928 dated 7 December 2012 to the period after its issuance and excluded data-entry work performed earlier.

The earlier decision directed implementation of Letter No. 1928 for determining the rate and calculation of Windows-platform data-entry work, in accordance with Clause 3 of the relevant agreement, and directed payment of interest at 2% per month on delayed bills.

The Court noted that counsel for both sides accepted that the controversy was no longer res integra and was squarely covered by the earlier decision concerning the petitioner and the same subject matter.

Since the earlier judgment had already invalidated the restrictive effect of Letter No. 618 and directed implementation of the revised rates under Letter No. 1928, the Court considered it unnecessary to independently re-examine the petitioner’s claims.

Applying the earlier ruling to the present petition, the Court disposed of the matter in the same terms.

Consequently, the respondents were required to implement Letter No. 1928 dated 7 December 2012 for determining the applicable rate and calculation of the petitioner’s data-entry work, and to pay interest at 2% per month on delayed bills, consistently with the earlier judgment.

Any interlocutory application was also disposed of.