JUDGMENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. 1. The petitioners in this writ petition have prayed for the following reliefs:- i. “For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction(s) or a writ particularly in nature of certiorari commanding upon the respondents to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- each to the petitioners in the light of order and direction dated 03.10.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 6436 of 2023 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil No. 12351 of 2023)). AND ii. Further be pleased to pass appropriate order/direction imposing the interest for not making payment within the period of 4 months from the date of submission of requisite documents for identification/ verification of the claim as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The Department of Personal, Government of Bihar had set rules for hiring Class IV employees, where names were to be called from the District Employment Exchange. Pursuant to advertisement issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, the petitioners applied against vacancies of Class-IV posts. A panel of successful candidates was prepared, wherein, the petitioners were placed at Sl. No.261, 176, 213 and 279 respectively. Many candidates with lower ranks in the panel were appointed, but the petitioners were not. 3.1. A writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2605 of 1997(R) and analogous cases were filed by the candidates, who were not selected. The writ petitions were allowed directing the Deputy Commissioner to prepare a list of candidates, whose names were recommended in different offices, and thereafter an exercise of meeting of concerned offices was to be called to direct them to appoint those petitioners in terms of the government policy within a month. Respondents were also directed to accommodate such candidates in other departments in case of financial crunch or non-existence of vacancies. 3.2. These petitioners had also moved before the Ranchi Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3670 of 1998(R) and the same was disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in C.W.J.C. No.2605 of 1997(R). Since candidates below the rank of the petitioners in the panel list were appointed, whereas the petitioners were not, the petitioners had again moved before this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3004 of 2012. Since candidates below the rank of the petitioners in the panel list were appointed, whereas the petitioners were not, the petitioners had again moved before this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3004 of 2012. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to file representation before the authority concerned. 3.3. Since the representation of the petitioners remained unattended, petitioners filed a contempt petition being Cont. Case (Civil) No.234 of 2013, which was dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioners did not choose to proceed any further. 3.4. Other candidates, who had earlier moved in W.P.(S) No.4179 of 2006, whose grievances were not considered in a similar situation, had moved before this Court again in W.P.(S) No. 7191 of 2013. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to consider their case for appointment and it was also observed that respondent authorities shall also consider giving relaxation in age to the petitioners, if they have crossed the prescribed age limit. 3.5. The State of Jharkhand thereafter preferred Letters Patent Appeal bearing L.P.A. No. 225 of 2021, which was dismissed. 3.6. The State thereafter moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6436 of 2023 arising out of SLP Civil No. 12351 of 2023, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the State to pay Rs.10,00,000/- each to the eligible respondents (excluding respondent Nos. 8, 16, and 17 therein), Rs.15,00,000/- each to the families of the deceased respondents (respondents 8, 16, and 17), and Rs.10,00,000/- to respondent No.3 if he furnishes the requisite documents to satisfy his eligibility and merit position at par with his surviving co-respondents and he was also held entitled to compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh). 4. Claiming benefits based on the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in relation to other candidates who throughout pursued their case, the petitioners now have preferred this writ petition, claiming similar benefits. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are entitled to similar benefits as has been awarded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to other candidates. He submits that the petitioners were also in the panel of selected candidates and their cases is also similar to those who have been awarded monetary benefits by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are entitled to similar benefits as has been awarded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to other candidates. He submits that the petitioners were also in the panel of selected candidates and their cases is also similar to those who have been awarded monetary benefits by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further contends that since the respondents have not paid the monetary benefit despite the representations made by the petitioners, petitioners are also entitled to interest on the unpaid monetary benefits. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioners have withdrawn their earlier writ petition and their contempt petition stood dismissed as not maintainable. They abandoned their claim and went in hibernation. They did not pursue the litigation any further. Only when the other candidates were compensated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, these petitioners woke up from their deep slumbers and filed this writ petition claiming parity, which cannot be allowed. 7. From perusal of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court took into consideration following attending circumstances:- (i) the hardship faced by the respondents or their families who have been eagerly awaiting the outcome of their court-case for decades; (ii) the fact that some of them have passed away leaving behind their dependent families without any secured measures of livelihood; (iii) the surviving respondents are now senior citizens, and (iv) they are in dire need of some kind of social security in this old age. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the candidates in that case were compensated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. In that case the Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted some relief to those candidates who were before the Apex Court. Though there is no mention of power under Article 142 of the Constitution, but from the order it gives an impression that the relief was granted by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice. 9.1. In my opinion, grant of compensation by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India is within the exclusive domain of Hon’ble Supreme Court, which a High Court cannot exercise under Article 226 of Constitution. Further, an order / direction in exercise under Article 142 of the Constitution is not binding. 10. 9.1. In my opinion, grant of compensation by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India is within the exclusive domain of Hon’ble Supreme Court, which a High Court cannot exercise under Article 226 of Constitution. Further, an order / direction in exercise under Article 142 of the Constitution is not binding. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar reported in (2019) 4 SCC 197 in paragraph 30 has held as under- “30. It is well settled that a judgment is a precedent for the issue of law which is raised and decided. It is the ratio decidendi of the case which operates as a binding precedent. As observed by this Court in State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar [State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar, (1992) 1 SCC 489 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 345], what is binding on all courts is what the Supreme Court says under Article 141 of the Constitution, which is declaration of the law and not what it does under Article 142 to do complete justice.” 10.1. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Onkar Nath Dhar reported in (2021) 19 SCC 163 at paragraph 17 and 18 has held as under- “17.J.L. Koul [J.L. Koul v. State of J&K, (2010) 1 SCC 371 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 1101] is a case, accepting the rehabilitation scheme framed by the State authorities based on which appropriate accommodation was provided to 31 appellants and was given accommodation which was in their possession. Such direction was in terms of Article 142 of the Constitution. This Court in a judgment reported as Indian Bank v. ABS Marine Products (P) Ltd. [Indian Bank v. ABS Marine Products (P) Ltd., (2006) 5 SCC 72 ] held that the High Courts repeatedly followed a direction issued under Article 142, by treating it as the law declared by this Court. It was held that the courts should therefore be careful to ascertain and follow the ratio decidendi, and not the relief given on the special facts. This Court held as under : (Indian Bank case [Indian Bank v. ABS Marine Products (P) Ltd., (2006) 5 SCC 72 ] , SCC p. 87, para 26) “26. One word before parting. It was held that the courts should therefore be careful to ascertain and follow the ratio decidendi, and not the relief given on the special facts. This Court held as under : (Indian Bank case [Indian Bank v. ABS Marine Products (P) Ltd., (2006) 5 SCC 72 ] , SCC p. 87, para 26) “26. One word before parting. Many a time, after declaring the law, this Court in the operative part of the judgment, gives some directions which may either relax the application of law or exempt the case on hand from the rigour of the law in view of the peculiar facts or in view of the uncertainty of law till then, to do complete justice. While doing so, normally it is not stated that such direction/order is in exercise of power under Article 142. It is not uncommon to find that courts have followed not the law declared, but the exemption/relaxation made while moulding the relief in exercise of power under Article 142. When the High Courts repeatedly follow a direction issued under Article 142, by treating it as the law declared by this Court, incongruously the exemption/relaxation granted under Article 142 becomes the law, though at variance with the law declared by this Court. The courts should therefore be careful to ascertain and follow the ratio decidendi, and not the relief given on the special facts, exercising power under Article 142. One solution to avoid such a situation is for this Court to clarify that a particular direction or portion of the order is in exercise of power under Article 142. Be that as it may.” 18. In another judgment reported as Ram Pravesh Singh v. State of Bihar [Ram Pravesh Singh v. State of Bihar, (2006) 8 SCC 381 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1986] , it was held that any direction given on special facts, in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142, is not a binding precedent. This Court held as under : (SCC pp. 395-96, para 23) “23. The appellant next submitted that this Court, in some cases, has directed absorption in similar circumstances. Reliance is placed on the decision in G. Govinda Rajulu v. A.P. State Construction Corpn. Ltd. [G. Govinda Rajulu v. A.P. State Construction Corpn. Ltd., 1986 Supp SCC 651 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 71] We extract below the entire judgment : (SCC p. 651, paras 1-2) 1. Reliance is placed on the decision in G. Govinda Rajulu v. A.P. State Construction Corpn. Ltd. [G. Govinda Rajulu v. A.P. State Construction Corpn. Ltd., 1986 Supp SCC 651 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 71] We extract below the entire judgment : (SCC p. 651, paras 1-2) 1. We have carefully considered the matter and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we direct that the employees of the Andhra Pradesh State Construction Corporation Limited whose services were sought to be terminated on account of the closure of the Corporation shall be continued in service on the same terms and conditions either in the government departments or in the government corporations. 2. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to costs.” ” 11. The tenor of the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in relation to the other set of candidates, demonstrates that it was an order made under Article 142 of the Constitution on the peculiar facts of that case. Law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution. Any direction given on special facts, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution is not a binding precedent. 12. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that the relief granted by the Supreme Court cannot be extended to the petitioners in this case while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, I find that the petitioners in this case had filed this case only after the similarly situated candidates have been compensated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. They remained fence sitters waiting for a decade till others were compensated. Thus, there is delay and latches also on the part of the petitioners. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and what has been held above, I am of the opinion that no relief can be granted to these petitioners. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed .