IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No: 717 of 2004 Decided on: 28nd May, 2009 Nikka Ram …...Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and others …..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. Anup Rattan, Central Government Counsel Per Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioner is aggrieved only to a limited extent by the order, dated 8.4.2004 of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, passed in his Original Application No. 676/HP/2003 and has sought its judicial review, by means of the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, only to such extent. 2. Relevant facts may be noticed. Nikka Ram was an employee of B.S.L. Project. The employees of the said project were entitled to pay and allowances at the rates on which the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 employees of Punjab Government are paid salary and allowances. After the completion of the project, some staff was declared surplus. Petitioner was one of them. Surplus staff was taken over by the Central Government and deployed to various departments. Writ petitioner was initially adjusted in Industries Department and finally in Income Tax Department. He was, however, not given the benefit of pay revisions, based on Punjab Pay Commission Report. Other surplus employees of the project, who were absorbed in various departments of Central Government, were also not given those benefits. Some of those employees filed Original Applications, which were allowed and it was ordered that they be paid salary and allowances on part with employees of Punjab Government. 3. After the passing of orders to the aforesaid effect in some of the Original Applications by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, petitioner also filed Original Application, claiming that he be paid salary and allowances at the rates at which Punjab Government servants are being paid. His Original Application has been allowed by the learned Tribunal, but in the operative part of the order, it has been directed that the benefit of extra salary and allowances, on account of re-fixation of pay according to the Punjab rate, shall be available for future and so far as the previous period is concerned, it should be restricted to only eighteen months. 3 Petitioner’s grievance is that he should be given the benefit of Punjab pay and allowances from the very beginning, as has been done in the case of other surplus staff of the project, who had filed Original Applications, earlier to him. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. Admittedly, the pay of the petitioner, in accordance with the pay scales of Punjab Government, has to be re-fixed from the date the said government revised pay of its employees, after the petitioner and other surplus staff of B.S.L. Project was taken over by the Central Government. If that is so, the arrears would become due to him only on the date of such fixation and, therefore, the payment of arrears should not have been restricted to a period of eighteen months, prior to the institution of the Original Application. Petitioner has sought salary and allowances on Punjab pattern in respect of the post on which he has worked and not for any superior post and when he is held entitled to pay on Punjab rates, there should be no reason(s) for not paying the arrears to him for the entire period after the date of fixation of pay. 5. Counsel representing the Union of India says that the claim of the petitioner for the arrears, beyond three years, has become barred by time. According to him he approached the Tribunal more than ten years, after some other persons had 4 filed the Original Applications. The argument has been noticed only to be rejected. Law is well settled that where many persons are affected by an action and only some of them approach the court and succeed, the benefit granted to them, in the litigation, should be made available to all others also, who do not join them and ignoring them would amount to violation of fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Reference in this behalf may be made to Ashwani Kumar and others Vs. State of Bihar and others (1997) 2 SCC 1. Consequently, we allow this petition and order that pay of the petitioner shall also be re-fixed and arrears of pay and allowances paid to him in the same fashion and from the same date, as has been done in other cases, particularly in the case of Tarsem Kumar and others Vs. Union of India and others O.A. No. 1135-CH of 1992, decided on 9th February, 2001. ( R. B. Misra ), J. May 28, 2009(K) ( Surjit Singh ), J.