70 d 1 4r 1 7 CWP No4394 of2010 19 In the Dateofdecisiol1052Oll 411 CWP No 14394of2010 MajorSinghKhatkarand othersVs StateofPunjab and others 21 CWP No4188of2011 P 1 SinghDhillon andothers C Vs StateofPunjab and others 0 31CWP No2748 of2010 43 I SahahGuptaand othersVs StateofPunjab and others 0 41 CWP No19490of2010 I 1 othersVs StateofPunjab and another Z 151CWPN017961of2010 l ChamanLal Sethiand othersVs StateofPunjab and another I f61 CWP No 18486of2010 C0 Z Amar Nath3hutaniand othersVs StateofPunjab and others OO A71CWP No 18846of2010 2 ChanderKanta and others Z Vs StateofPunjab and another 81 CWP No9964 of2010 KidarNathSharmaand othersVs StateofPunjab and another 91 CWP No9969 of2010 L Ajit Singhandothers VS StateofPunjaband another Ce 101 CWP No2457 of2011 Sat Pal Vs The StateofPunjab and others Olll CWP NoA647of2011 1 Ajit Singhand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 4A14 n 4 Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 14 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 71 d r CWP N014394 of2010 29 6121CWP No 4166 of2011 GurcharanSinghBedi Vs StateofPunjab and others K131 CWP No123 of2011 GurcharanSinghand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 141 CWP No2975 of2011 RameshKumari Vs StateofPunjab andanother 151 CWP No 2886of2011 C MangalSinghand othersVs Stateof Punjaband another 0 C 161 CWP No 4305of2011 l5 SinghVs State andothers I Z CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Presen I Alka ChatrathMr VikasChatrathMrik SinghMr KPS Cl Z SharmaMrSK Arora MrAnil ChopraMrunnySingla and Qo with MsCharu 7 Z 5 11 PERMODKOHLI J 111all thesewrit petitionsis common basedupon identicalfactsand same questionoflaw The petitionersare claimingbenefit of the revised pay scales with effect rom 19061971 the date when the similarly situated govemment were held entitled to the revised pay scales on completion of 8ve years of Service TheSePetitioners were denied benet 2 eOSUe44mn00 ePeanm a Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 14 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 72 C 9 1 CWP Nol4394 of2010 39 thoughlater all of them were grantedthe benefit with effect from 1671975 This controversyearlier came up before this Court in CWP No2208 of 1989 0LekhRaj Khera and others Vsa State of Punjab and another This writ petitionwas allowed vide judgmentdated 24032009 with thefollowing directionsl In view of the aboveIegaland factualposition 1 this petitionsucceedspartially are 0 directedto extendthe benefitof thePayrevision in 0 CAO case of petitioners we 111971 instead of I 9 163975 Theyare 8irtherdirectedto fIx the pay I scale of the such of the petitionerswhose Z unrevisedpay falls betweentwo stagesin the new 0 time scale 111the revised scale 111the next stage I The processof Sxationof pay be within C Z a periodof four months from the date certifled copy of this order is served upon the competent 0 The consequential benefitbereleasedin 17 Z favourof the petitioners within a periodof two Qe months theteafler 202009 PERMOD KOHLI9 JUDG It is common case of the partiesthat all the petitioners are e govemedby the directionscontained ltl Lekh Raj Kheras case 6supra noticed hereinabove However leamed counsel appearingfor the Statee respondents has expressedreservationin regardto grantof relief to these writ petitionersparticularlythose who approachedthe Court after a long aowrmmw649il1Vdhl 4 Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 14 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 73 eleen4 e 11e93 I e e CWP Nol4394 of2010 649 e delayfor seekingthe relief As a matter of fact all the petitioners are seeking of thejudgmentof Lekh RajKheras case for their respective benefits In view ofthe raised bythe on thequestionofdelaythesewrit petitions were heardthoughprincipally all the writ petitionsare covered by the judgment rendered in Lekh Raj Kherascase 1 CL The Statehas relied upon vanous which are noticed hereunder 0 Co In the case of RegionalManagerAePe SRTC Vse N I and others 200811 Supreme Court Cases 210 Honble I the Supreme Court declined the prayer for of dailywagers Z from the date of their initial engagementlll the year 1986 in the writ 2 0 petitionflled in the year 1999 Oll thegroundof delayand lachesthough I theywere entitledto such reliefunderan ofthe Court Z In the case of Nadia Distte PrimarySchool Council and m another Vse Sristidhar Biswas and others 2007912 Supreme Court 7 Cases 779 the Court declinedthe reliefon thegroundof delayin thematter Z whenthewrit petitionus filed a8er a periodof nineyears L1 The relevantobservations are contained in paragraph11 of the judgment afOtesaidwhich are asunder 11 In the presentcase the panelwas preparedln 94nemwe 1980 and the petitionersapproached the court ln 1989 aRer the decision ln Dibakar Pal Such persons should not be given any benefit by the court when theyallowedmore than nine years to Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 14 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 74 1 1 I l In 9Ioa1 l e I t l 0 ee CWP Nol4394 of2010 65 elapse Delay is very significantin matters of granting relief and court cannot come to the rescue of the personswho are not vigilantof their rights Therefore the Vlew taken by the High Court condoningthe delayof nine years cannot be Countenanced 1 In Eastern Coalfields Led Vs DugalKumar 2008114 Supreme Court Cases 295 a writ petitionwas filed after a decadeclaiming 0 C1 the benefit of additionalquantity of coal allottedto thecompany 10 years I C5 beforethe dateof filingof the writ petitionIt hasbeenheld that inordinate I delayon the part of the petitioner in makingthe motion for a writ is an Z adequategroundfor to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the ConstitutionofIndia I In the case of SS Balu and another vse State of Kerala and Cl Z others 2 Supreme Court Cases 479 Honble the Supreme Court made followingobservationsto denythe relief when there is inordinate oo delayl m Z C4 17 It is also wellsettled principleof law that tl delaydefeatsequity The Govemmentorderwas issued on 15200 The appellantsdid not 81e any writ application the legalityand 4e validitythereof Onlyafler the writ petitionsfiled by others were allowed and the State of Kerala preferred an appeal theyimpleaded themselvesas partespondents It is now a trite 614131411 4a4 04 6 A4I IS IL el 4066641 Il 1 44 e Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 14 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 75 n t sm011Ile 0 l b CWP Nol4394 of2010 69 e1 law that where the writ petitionerapproaches the HighCourt after a longdelayreliefs prayedfor rnaybe denied to them on the groundof delayand laches of the fact theyare similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefitofthe It is thus not possible for 1 US to issue any directionto the Stateof Kerala or the Commission to appointthe at this 0 0 stage In NDMC v Pan Singhthis Court heldl 9 SCC p283para161 I In the case of Shiv Dass Vse Union of India nd others Z 200719 SupremeCourt cases 274 the writ petitionerwas denied the disabilitypensionin the CC year 1983 He filed a writ petition111 the High I Court in theyear 2005 This writ petitionwas dismissedbythe HighCourt C thequestionof delay Z and laches The Honble Supreme Court while the matter to the High Court r made the following observations a Z 10 In the case of pensionthe cause of action Il actually continues from month to month That however cannot b a 8round to overlook delayin 1 filingthe petition It would dependuponthe fact 1e000 of each case If petition1S filed beyonda reasonable period say three years normallythe Court would rejectthe same or restrict the relief which could be grantedtO a reasonableperiodof 4eOrweerwm Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 14 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 76 bw 4 118eevevoAe 0 4 CWP Nol4394 of2010 79 aboutthreeyearSe The HighCourt did not examine whether on merit the appellanthad a case If on meritsit would have foundthattherewas no scope for interference it would have dismissed the writ petitionon that score alone Learned counsel appeanngfor the havealso 1 referredto various of this Court and also the government instructionsin regardto ofthe HighCourt 0 0 The StateofPunjab issuedinstructionsdated172002 to all the Financial I 9 thePrincipal Secretariesand the AdministrativeSecretaries I to theGovernmentofPunjabThe instructions are as underl Z 6il Whereverthe rightsof the partieshave been 2 Q settledby a judgment of the Court the Statehas C judgment even uptothe highestcourt of the land Z and the has attained finalitythen the OO Cr Statemust acceptthe and implement it in W2 Z 1 its true spirit and command There is implicit 0 on the part of the Stateto grant same relief to other membersof the cadre whose claim was basedup8nidenticalfactsand pointoflaw 94m iio The StateGoveent shall as as possiblein any case not later than four months react and respondto a legal servedupon it by any of its employees in redressal 9BESUWsnmrawowsm rn Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 14 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 77 Se e 44 O 6rnS e 6 0 1 CWP No4394 of 2010 8 e of his of relief which has been grantedto his similarlysituated 111 furtheranceto thejudgment of the Court Unless for reasons to be indicated ln the reply the State feels compelled to denysuch relief Needlessto pointout that denialmust neitherbe evasive nor 1 intended to circumvent the ordersofthe Court r iii9 In the event such an employee is compelled 0 C0 to approach the court of law the COUrt I 0 awardsinterestandlor costs while allowingsuch a I petitionthenthe incurred bythe State Z including thcostslinterest paidlll lrtherance to the ordersofthe Court shouldbe recovered from I theerringofficer C1 6iv The concernedquartersofthe Government are Z expectedto work out the detailsin 81rtherance to m the above directions and lssue pervasivebut W2 Z definite instnlctionsto11 its forthwith 0 to ensure compliance 33 In the case of State of Rarnataka Orse Vse Ce Lalitha 94 20069 2 SCC ofsimilarlysituatedpetsons observedas underl 18 Service evolved by this Court from time to time postulatesthat all persons I 1vSW OI4 601 n ll 1 Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 14 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 78 4 CWP Nol4394 of2010 691 r similarlysiblatedshould be treatedsimilarly Only because one person has the court that would not mean that persons similarlysituated shouldbe treated Z3 I haveheardthe learnedcounselfor theparties at length The petitioners are similarly sihlatedas thewrit petitioners in m Lekh Raj Kheras case supral However it ls a fact that these writ petitionershave approached this Court afler the judgmentof Lekh Raj 0 0 Kherascase for thesimilarrelief The Statewhile thattheyare I C9 similarlysituated resistedtheir claim onlyOll the groundof delayin flling I the writ petitionsThe ln Lekh Raj Kheras case has attained Z efinality and the State has the same vide its circular dated t C 18082010 issuedbythe District Education Offlcer SE9 Gurdaspur to all 0 the Masters etc The relevant instructionsfor its C are as under1 Z As per letter underreference directions were OO issued to draw the arrears of the concerned with mm Z regardto grantofpayscalefrom 1111971 instead of 161975 in terms of the reportof the Kothari Commissionwithin a periodof 15 daysNow Civil 94 of by the Court in tenns of the decision in Lekh Raj Kheras case Thereforeif any petitionerof this writ petitionis pertaining tO your schoolthe due benefitbe given to him within 10 days and AWmo5ae e9144A4 Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 14 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 79 V 1 S 41 meLS 7e 00 1 1e 4e j 1 1 e CWP Nol4394 of2010 109 receipt be sent to this offlce While releasing paymentto the petitionerthe Head of the School will ensure that the benefit has been correctly given to the petitioneras per instructionslrulesIf due to the of the school Head any petitionerremained for paymen the Iam concemed School Head will be responsible for the C same 0 C From the above circular it is establishedthat the State has C5 implemented the judgmentqua writ petitionersin Lekh Raj Kheras case Instructionsdated1772002 referredtOaboveclearlydepictsGovernments Z policyto implement the attainingfinalitynot only quathe writ 2 petitionersbut also in respectto all non as well who are I similarly situatedand may be entitledto similarrelief Theseinstructions C Z are generalin nature and applyin all such wherever the judgment cases against the State has attained finalityDespite theseinstructionshaving rlo beenissuedin the year 2002 the Stateis actingin W thereofand Z similarly situated personsare left with no otheroptionbut to approachthis Ll Court time and again This has the effect of this Court with unnecessarylitigationand chocking thejusticedeliverysystem It may also be noticed that not onlythe Govemmentitselfhasdecidedto the C judgmentin respectto all similarlysituated persons a Division Bench of this Court also issuedgeneraldirectionsin this regard lll the case of Satbir SinghVse State of Haryana2002 629ServiceCases Today 354 The relevantdirectionsare contained in paragraph 19 of this judgmentwhich W Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 14 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 80 t 6 eW CWP Nol4394 of2010 6119 C are as under 19 Be that as it may particularlyin the afore referred premiseswe still feel that it is the bounden dutyof the Court to issue the following directionsto the Statein the largerpublicinterest and for properadministrationofjusticel 1 O Wherever the rightsof the partieshave been r settledby a judgment of the Court the Statehas 0 CO takenall remediesavailable to it in law againstthat I C5 judgment even uptothe highest court of the land I and the judgment has attained finalitythen the Z Statemust acceptthejudgment and implement it in L its ttue spiritand command There is implicit I obligation on the part of the State to grant same r relief to other membersof the cadre whose claim Z was basedupon identicalfactsand pointof law OO iio The StateGovernmentshall as expeditiously e7 Z as possiblein any case not laterthan four months Oa react and respond to a legal served upon it by any of its employees in redressal of his of relief which has been 4m grantedto his coemployeesimilarlysituated lll furtheranceto thejudgmentof the Court Unless for reasons to be indicatedin the reply the State feels compelledto denysuch relief Needless to UAenlwnrarasm011 4LllU 1 Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 14 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 81 44 1 S 6 U I o v l 6 ba CWP Nol4394 of2010 6120 point out that denial must neitherbe evasive nor intended to circumventthe ordersofthe Court iio In the event such an employeeis compelled to approachthe court of law the court awardsinterestandlor costs while allowing such a petitionthenthe incurredbytheState m including the costslinterestpaid 10 furtherance to 0 the ordersofthe Court shouldbe recovered 0 from 0 theerringofflcer I 9 ivl The concernedquartersofthe Govemmentare 4 expectedto work out the details in 6lrtheranceto Z the above directions and lssue pervasivebut I to ensure t It is a matter of Z concem that the abovedirectionsissuedbythis Courtas far back as in the year 2002 are beingfloutedwith impunityThe ClO State has failed to its obligationto grant 7 relief to similarly Z situatedpersonsat its own level Under suchcircumstances lt cannot be tl permittd to pleaddelayand lacheswherethe Stateitself is responsiblefor level on account of concluded and binding of this Court and C the Honble Supreme Court Apart from the above it has also come on record that after Lekh Raj Kheras case a number of writ petitionscame to be flled in the year 2009 and 2010 whichehavebeendecidedby this Court grantingthe OS290ae 1I4mu Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 14 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 82 n e 4 S e410w1ve140WmMWImv104 a4n e e 0 ea 1 CWP Nol4394 of2010 130 r similar relief as in Lekh Raj Kheras case and the Statehas chosen not to preferany appealagainst those The questionof reeflxationof the salary lll fact gives a recurring cause of action to the govemmentemployeeas every month he loosessome amount from his salary or retiralbenefltson account of wrong flxation of salary Thus the doctrineof delayand laches cannot be 1 permitted to be invoked as th rule in every case The cited 0 on behalfof the Statemostlypertained to matters seniorityand 0 4S3 policyrnatterSe In Ce Lalithas case supra9Honble the Supreme Court C9 has clearlyheld that similarlysituatedpersons should not be treated I Similarly ln Shiv Dasss case supra9cited on behalf of the Z Honble the SupremeCourt has againclearlyheld that in 0 casesofpensionat the most reliefcould be restrictedto threeyears I A Full Bench of this Court in the case of SarojKumari and C Z others vse The state of Punjaband others 1998 Services Law Reporter266 have examinedthe questionof reefIxationin the context of 00 delayin theCourt whereinit hasbeenheld as underl m2 Z 9 Learned counselfor the petitioners submitted Ci that in case of wrongfixation of pay to which an employeemay be entitled under the relevant rules instructions or even on account of a judgment eee thereis no questionof any limitationas the wrong payment of salaryevery tnonth is a continuing wrong againsthim which givesrise to recurring cause ofaction each time he is paidsalarywhich is 40 Oatmeewe Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 14 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 83 1 e e10 41r 4 A4171400aW4el n l 0 J Pe CWP No143940f2010 14 r not computedaccordingto the relevant rules instructionsor ajudgmenttheemployees in such a case has a rightto ask for a direction to the State Goverent or to the employer to fix the pay rightfromdayone in accordancewith the relevantrules and instructions However while 1 therelief of arrears of pay etc the same r can be con8ned to threeyears and two months 0 0 which is the periodof limitation providedfor I C5 getting a relief of realisationof arrears in a civil I suit Z 14 For the reasons we are of the View 0 that in cases whereonlyfixation of pay according I to the relevantruleslinstructions or a judgment 1S L0 prayedfor the writ petitioncannot bedismissed at Z the thresholdon thegroundofdelayand lachesbut 0 the paymentof arrears can be restrictedto m a Z reasonableperiod Three yearsand two months would be considereda reasonableperiodas that is the period for which a person can ask for the C paymentofarrearsbefore a Civil Court cause Thus the ratio of thejudgmentof the111 Bench is applicableon all four corners to the factsof this case on account of delayand laches though the relief for arrears can be restricted to a period 4WOho4 em e 1 1IeSaoae Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 14 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 84 0 erl6 9 e mtav94Pa nee6meweeern 0 r CWP Nol4394 of2010 159 r ofthree yearsas observedby Honble theSupreme Court and Full Bench of this Court referredto hereinabove In view of the abovecircumstancesthesepetitionsare allowed 111termsof the judgmentin Lekh Raj Kheras case However theclaim for arrears lS restrictedto threeyearspreceding the filingof the writ petitions No costs m It is 81rther directedthat all similarlysituated government Q may be grantedthe relief in terms of Lekh Raj Kheras case 0 0 thoughrestricting claim of arrears to threeyears It would be prudentand I 0 for the Govemmentto issue a circularlnotificationin this I regard as earlyas possible to prevent8lrtherlitigation on thisquestion 1 Z A copy of thisorderbe placed on the file of otherconnected 2 writ petitions 6 I t 11052011 PERMOD KOHLI9 Z BLS JUDGE C11 Le AVJ Note Whetherto be referredto theReporter2YES Z Qm c5 S 2 0 4 4 44 Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 14 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document