J 1 I7 1 Id 1P 1 1 1 f e r CWP No14394 of2010 019 In theHighCourt ofPunjabandHaryana at Dateofdecisionl 11052011 11 CWP No 14394 of2010 MajorSinghKhatkar andothersVs StateofPunjaband others 21CWP NoA1880f2011 r 1 SinghDhillon andothers Vs StateofPunjaband others 0 0 A31CWP N0127480f2010 C0 I SahahGuptaand othersVs StateofPunjaband others C5 41 CWP No19490 of2010 I m SmtSantoshGupta andothers Vs StateofPunjab and another Z 151CWPNol7961 of2010 2 L ChamanLal Sethiand others Vs StateofPunjaband another I 6I CWP Nol8486 of2010 r Z AmarNath Bhutani andothersVs StateofPunjab and others m A71CWP Nol8846 of2010 a ChanderKanta and others Vs StateofPunjaband another Z 81 CWP Nol9964 of2010 0m Kidar Nath Shannaand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 9I CWP Nol9969 of2010 t Ajit Singhand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 101 CWP No2457 of2011 Cm Sat Pal Vs The State ofPunjabandothers 6111CWP NoA647 of2011 r Ajit Singhand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 44 4411014n oIW e7 n e Parkash Om 2014.06.16 15: 57 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 80 e1 CWP Nol4394 of2010 29 r 4121CWP No 4166 of2011 GurcharanSinghBedi Vs StateofPunjabandothers K131CWP No123 of2011 GurcharanSinghand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 141 CWP N02975 of2011 RameshKumari Vs StateofPunjab andanother 1 6151CWP No 2886 of2011 0 MangalSinghand others Vs Stateof Punjaband another 0 C 161CWP N043050f2011 I C5 SinghVs StateofPunjab andothers Z CORAM1 HONBLE MR JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI rL Present Mr RK Arora MrM Bhagirath MrSameer SachdevaMs Alka Chatrath MrNikas Chatrath MrAmrik SinghMr KPS I SandhuMrrribhawan SinglaMrGS Bal Mr Harinder CJ SharmaMrK Arora MrAnil ChopraMrunny Singlaand Z MrDeepakGuptaAdvocates for the petitioners m Mrluneet GuptaAddl Advocate General Punjabwith MsCharu Tuli Senior DAG Punjabfor the mw3 Z PERMOD KOHLI J Controversyin all thesewrit petitions1S COmmOll based upon Identicalfactsand same questionof law The petitioners are claimingbenefit of the revised pay scales 1 with effect from 19061971 the date when the similarly situated were held entitled to the revised pay scales Oll completion of Sve years of service These petitionerswere denied beneOt m4S11mw6mmwwanMwmamnammnwwsmrmmmnsrauM0w60e wolrI Parkash Om 2014.06.16 15: 57 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 81 1 19 O e o C3 CWP Nol4394 of2010 639 thoughlater all of them were grantedthe benefit with effect from 1671975 This controversyearlier came up before this Court in CWP No2208 of 1989 Lekh Raj Khera and others Vse State of Punjab and anotherl This writ petitionwas allowed vide judgmentdated 24032009 with thefollowing directions In view of the abovelegaland factualposition this petitionsucceedspartially are r directedto extendthe benefltof thePayrevision in 0 40 case of petitioners we ll1 971 instead of I 0 1671975 Theyare uther directedto flx thepay scale of the such of the petitionerswhose ct Z unrevisedpay falls betweentwo stagesin the new t2 time scale in the revised scale in the next stage r r The processof fixationof pay be within I C a periodof four months from the date certifled Z c1 copyof this order is served upon the competent QO Cr The benefitbe reieasedin mw Z favour of the petitioners within a periodof two 11 rnonthsthereafter 240312009 PERMOD K0HLI9 JUDG 14 It is coon case of the partiesthat all the petitioners are e governedby the directions contained 111 Lekh Raj Kheras case Sllp noticed hereinabove However leamed counsel appearing for the State has reservationin regardto grantof relief to these writ petitionersparticularly those who approachedthe Coun aRer a long Parkash Om 2014.06.16 15: 57 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 82 7 Ie4Ilvr 0 2 1 e CWP Nol4394 of2010 49 Pe delayfor seekingthe relief As a rnatterof fact all the petitioners are seeking of thejudgmentof Lekh Raj Kheras case for their benefits In view ofthe objectionraisedbythe on thequestion of delaythesewrit petitions were heardthough all the writ petitions are coveredby the judgmentrendered in Lekh R Kheras case t The Statehas relied upon vanous which are noticed C hereunder 0 Ca0 In the case of RegionalManager Al SRTC Vse Ne I 0 and others 20081 1 Supreme Court Cases 210 Honble I the SupremeCourt declined the prayer for regularisation of dailywagers t Z from the date of their initial engagementin the year 1986 in the writ 2 r fllecfin the year 1999 on the groundof delayand laches though I they were entitledto such reliefundr an ofthe Court Z In the case of Nadia DisttePrimarySchool CouncU and another Vs Sristidhar Biswas and others 2007912 Supreme Coun 110 Cases779 theCourt declined therelief on theground of delayin themar e7 Z when thewrit petition was filed a8er a periodof nine years tl The relevant observationsare contained in 11 of the judgment afotesaidwhich are asunder 11 In the presentcase the panelwas prepared 111 9eeee 1980 and the petitionersapproached the court lll 1989 aflet the decision in Dibakar Pal Such personsshould not be given any bene8t by the court when theyallowed more than nine years to Sv e0wenwee4494140140 4 1011 Il Parkash Om 2014.06.16 15: 57 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 1 83 4f a CWP Nol4394 of2010 659 elapse Delay is very significantin mauers of granting relief and court ca come to the rescue of the personswho are not vigilantof their rights Therefore the Vlew taken by the High Court condoningthe delayof mne yearscannot be countenanced 1 In Eastern Coal8eldsLimited VseDugalKumar 14 0 Supreme Court Cases 295 a writ petitionwas filed after a decadeclaiming 0 0 thebenefit of additionalquaiy of coalallottedto the company 10 years I Ca9 beforethe dateof fllingof the writ petitionIt has beenheld that inordinate I delayon the partof the petitioner in makingthe motion for a writ is an Z groundfor re6lsingto exercise discretion under Article 226 of C theConstitutionofIndia er I In the case of SS BaIu and another vse State of Kerala and others 2 Supreme Court Cases 479 Honble the Supreme Coun Z er rnade followiilgobservations to denythe relief when there is inordinate 01 delayl m Z 44 17 It is also wellsettled principleof law that delaydefeatsequity The Govemment order was issued on 152002 The appellaMsdid not Sle anywrit appIicationquestioningthe legalityand validitythereof Onafter the writ petitions81ed 114 by others were allowed and the State of Kerala preferred an appealthereagainsttheyimpleaded themselves as It ls now a trite IremImnuoaalee4wWnm WIWIUl6141Cbllae S4S64 In Parkash Om 2014.06.16 15: 57 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 84 tp e 1 1 ve Io 8 I 4P 6 CWP N014394 of2010 66 e law thatwhere the writ petitioner the HighCourt afler a longdelay reliefs prayedfor may bedenied to them on the groundof delayand laches of the fact theyare similarly situatedto the other candidates who obtain the benefit It is thus not possible for m US to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or 0 the to appointthe at this 0 0 stageIn NDMC v Pan Singhthis Court held I SCC p83 para1697 C5 I In the case of Shiv Dass Vse Union of India nd others t Z 9 SupremeCourt cases 274 the writ petitioner was denied the 2 pensionin the year 1983 He filed a writ petitionin the High Q Court in theyear 2005 This writ petition was dismissedby the HighCourt C3 the question of delayand Iaches The Honble SupremeCoun Z while the matter to the HighCourt made the following 0 observationSle 7 Z 10 In the case of pension the causeof action Om actually continues from month to month That however cannot be a groundto overlook delayin 1 fiIingthe petition It would dependupon the fact 1G of each case If petition 1S filed beyonda reasonable periodsay three years normallythe Court would rejectthe same or restrict the relief which could be grantedto a reasonableperiodof j 5arnI uAeUWLueImam 3 S PeW Parkash Om 2014.06.16 15: 57 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 85 1 e4 CWP Nol4394 of2010 67 about three years The HighCourt did not examine whether on merit the appellanthad a case If on meritsit would have found that therewas no scope for interference it would have dismissed the writ petition on thatscore alone 33 Learned counsel for the have also 1 referredto various of this Court and also the government r instructions in regard to of the of theHighCourt 0 The StateofPunjabissued intructions dated172002 to all theFinancial C3 CommissionersthePrincipal Secretariesand the Administrative Secretaries C5 I to theGovernmentofPunjab The instructionsare as under Z 6iI Wherever the rightsof the partieshave been r settledby a judgment of the Court the Statehas 0 4r takenall remediesavailableto it in law against that f3 judgment even uptothe highestcourt of the Iand Z and the judgmenthas attained finality then the m 4t Statemust acceptthejudgment and implement it in 2 Z its true spiritand command There is implicit 1 1 tl obligation the part of the State to grantsame on 1 relief to other membersof the cadre whose claim was basedupn identicalfacts andpointof law ii The State Govemment shall as expeditiously VeeevO as possiblein any case not later than four months react and respondto a legal servedupon it by any of its employees in redressal ewmm3m111IWW4mom awanwrnmvm l Ilr mantn o Parkash Om 2014.06.16 15: 57 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 86 S1 n 1eV 9e 5 110 4 rP CWP Nol4394 of2010 68 e of his of relief which has been granted to his similarlysituated lll irtheranceto thejudgmentof the Court Unless for reasons to be indicated in the reply the State feels to denysuch relief Needlessto pointout that denialmust neitherbe evasive nor intendedto circumvent theordersofthe Court 1 iii9 In the event such an employee is compelled 0 C3 to approach the COUrtof law whereuponthe court awardsinterestandlor costs while allowingsucha C5 I thenthe incurred bythe State Z the costslinterestpaidin 81rtheranceto theordersofthe Court should be recoveredfrom Q theerringofficeros iv The concernedquartersofthe Governt are Z to work out the details in furtheranceto C the above directions and issue pervasivebut Wa Z deflniteinstructionsto all its forthwith ll to ensure 55 In the case of State of Karnataka c Orse Vsa C Lalitha 2 SCC 747 Honble the Supreme Court while considering theright of similarlysituated persons observedas under SS18Service evolved by this Court from time to time postulatesthat all persons VllwneAe UllW4M 4 P 1n Parkash Om 2014.06.16 15: 57 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 87 6 CWP Nol4394 of2010 99 r similarlysituatedshould be treatedsimilarly Only becauseone person has the court that would not mean that persorissimilarlysituate should be treateddifferentlyeeeeeOn Il I haveheardthe learnedcounselfor theparties at length The petitioners are similarly situatedas the writ ltl m Lekh Raj Kheras case 6supra However it is a fact that these writ 0 have this Court aRer the judgmentof Lekh Raj 0 0 Kherascase for the similarrelief The Statewhile concedingthat theyare C5 similarly situated resistedtheir claim onlyon the groundof delayin Sling I thewrit petitionsThe in Lekh RajKheras casehas attained Z flnalityand the State has the same vide its circular dated 18082010 issuedbythe District Education Offlcer SEI Gurdaspur to alI et the Masters et The relevant instructions for its I Co are as under1 Z Cr As per letter under reference directions were oo t issuedto draw the arrears of the concerned with J Z regard to grantofpayscalefrom l1971 instead tl of 16771975in tenns of the reportof the Kothari Commissionwithin a periodof 15 daysNow Civil Writ Petition No806212010 has also been disposed G of by the Court in terms of the decision in Lekh Raj Kheras case Therefore if any petitionerof this writ petitionis pertaining to your school the due beneStbe given to him within 10 days and mm 9manmawwrwoew en Parkash Om 2014.06.16 15: 57 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 88 s ve0141 41 CWP N014394 of2010 109 receiptbe sent to this office While releasing to the petitionerthe Head of the School will ensure that the benefit has been correctly given to the petitioner as per instructionslrules If due to the of the school Head any remained for payment the e concernedSchoolHead will be for the C same 0 U Frorn the above circular it is established that the State has I C5 impleed the judgmentqua writ petitionersin Lekh Raj Kheras case I Instructionsdated177002 referredto above clearlydepictsGovemments Z policy to implement thejudgmentsattaining flnalitynot only qua the writ 2 but also in respectto all non writoetitioners as well who are r situatedandmay be entitledto similar relief Theseinstructions I C are general m nature and applyin all such cases wherever the judgment Z the State has attained finality Despitethese instructions having oo beenissued in the year 2002 the Stateis actingin derogationthereofand Z situatedpersonsare left with no otheroptionbut to this Court time andagain This has the effect of burdening this Court with unnecessary litigationand chockingthe justicedeliverysystem It may also benoticed that not onlythe Govemmentitself has decidedto implement the Cem in respectto a1l similarlysituatedpersons a Division Bench of thisCourt also issued generaldirections in this regardin the case of Satbir SinghVse State of Haryana 2002 629Service Cases Today 35 The relevant directions are contained in 19 of this judgmentwhich p0reeW0490 4011 141 Parkash Om 2014.06.16 15: 57 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 89 1 aI CWP No4394 of2010 6119 C areas under 19 Be that as it may particularlyin e aforea referred premiseswe still feel that it is the bounden du of the Court to issue the following directionsto the Statein the largerpublicinterest and for properadministrationofjustice 1 i Whereverthe rightsof the partieshave been settledby a judgment of the Court the Statehas 0 0 taken all remediesavailableto it in law againstthat I t5 judgment even uptothe highestcourt of the land I and the judgmenthas attained finality then the Z Statemust acceptthejudgment and it in 2 r its true spiritand command There is implicit I obligation on the part of the State to grantsame r relief to other membersof the cadre whose claim Z was basedupon identical factsand pointof law 0 iiI The StateGovernt shall as expeditiously W2 Z as possiblein any case not laterthan four months react and respond to a legal servedupon it by any of its employees in redressal of his of relief which has been 4 grantedto his similarlysituated 111 8lrtheranceto thejudgmentof the Court Unless for reasons to be indicated in the reply the State feels compelledto denysuch relief Needless to eY1141 Voeeo Parkash Om 2014.06.16 15: 57 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 90 2 r1r 4 4 4 r Pl CWP No4394 of2010 6129 pointout that denial must neither be evasive nor intended to circumvent the ordersof the Court iiil In the event such an employeeis compelled to approachthe court of law whereuponthe court awardsinterestandlor costs while allowingsuch a thenthe incurredbytheState 1 including the costslinterestpaidin furtheranceto r theordersofthe Court should be recovered from 0 O theerringofficer 6iv The concernedquartersof the Govemment are C5 I expected to work out the details in Alrtheranceto 4 Z the above directions and issue pervasivebut definiteinstructionsto all its forthwith CC to ensure Il I C It is a matter of concem that the abovedirections issuedby this Z Court as far back as in the year 2002 are beingfIoutedwith impunityThe m State has failed to dischargeits obligationto grant relief to similarly m2 Z situatedpersonsat its own level Under such circumstances it cannot be tl to pleaddelayand lacheswhere the Stateitself is responsible for unnecessary litigationwhich could be conveniently tackled at administrative Ievel on account of concluded and bindingjudgments of this Coun and the C Honble Supreme Court Apart from the above it has also come on record that after Lekh Raj Kheras case a number of writ petitionscatne to be flled in the year 2009 and 2010 which have been decided by this Court grantingthe SlerlV011172041A044t4al 0Uar4r41dn4IWl eeev I l Parkash Om 2014.06.16 15: 57 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 91 e e1r9a460 ve2ele 9 CWP N014394 of2010 13 r similar relief as in Lekh Raj Kheras case and the State has chosen not to preferanyappealagainstthose The questionof reIxation of the salary in fact givesa recurring cause of action to the govemmentemployee as every month he loosessome amount from his salaryor retiralbene8ts on account of wrong fIxationof salary Thus the doctrine of delayand laches cannt be m permitted to be invoked as thumbrule in every case The judgments cited 0 on behalf of the Statemostlypertained to matters seniorityand 0 0 policymatters In Ce Lalithas case Honble the Supreme Court I 0 has clearlyheld that similarlysituatedpersons should not be treated I Similarly111 Shiv Dasss case supra9 cited on behalf of the Cr Z Honble the SupremeCourt has againclearlyheld that lll 5 0 casesofpensionat the most reliefcouldbe restrictedto threeyears er I A Full Bench of this Court in the case of SarojKumari and Cl others vse The state of Punjaband others 1998 59 Services Law Z Reporter266 have examinedthe questionof re41xationin the context of CO cr delayin approaching the Court wherein it hasbeenheld as underl av Z 9 Learnedcounselfor the submiued 0 thatin case of wrong flxationof pay to which an employee may be entitledunder the relevant rules instructiors or even on account of a judgment weaP there is no questionof any limitation as the wrong paymentof salaryevery month lS a continuing wrongagainsthim which givesnse to recumng causeof action each time he is paidsalarywhich is 1enrmlweun0WloWnv 49Unn n Parkash Om 2014.06.16 15: 57 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document J 1 92 4 Y4USOe60n o eiero 0 e 4 e XO CWP No143940f2010 149 4 not computedaccordingto the relevant ules instructions or ajudgmenttheemployees in such a case has a rightto ask for a direction to the State Goveent or to the employer to flx the pay correctlyrightfrom dayone in accordancewith the relevantrules and instructions However while 1 granting the relief of arrears of pay etc the same C Call be conSnedto threeyears and two months 0 0 which is the periodof limitation providedfor C5 getting a relief of realisation of arrears in a civil I sui Z 14 For the foregoing reasons we are of the view that in cases whereonlyfixation of pay according Q r I to the relevant ruleslinstructionsor a judgment 1S l3 prayedfor thewrit petitioncannot bedismissedat Z e the thresholdon thegroundof delayand Iachesbut C0 the paymentof arrears can be restricted to a AW3 Z reasonableperiod Three years and two months Ll would be considered a reasonableperiodas that 1S the periodfor which a person can ask for the paymentofarrears beforea Civil Court aa The cause of the petitioners is a recurringcause Thus the ratio of the judgmentof the Full Bench is applicableon all four corners to the factsof this case Petitionersrightcannot be defeatedmerelyon account of l delayand laches thoughthe relief for arrears CM1 be restrictedto a period emeamewmeemwameae Parkash Om 2014.06.16 15: 57 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 93 0 e o4e N eernS acrea64Srr me 4I4 1 CWP No4394 of2010 6159 r ofthreeyearsas observedby Honble theSupreme Court and Full Bench of thisCourt referredto hereinabove In view of the abovecircumstancesthesepetitions are allowed tn tennsof thejudgmentin Lekh Raj Kheras case the claim for arrearS lS restrictedto three yearspreceding the filingof the wnt petitionSe No costs a It is Slrther directed that all similarlysituatedgovernment C may be grantedthe relief in terms of Lekh Raj Kheras case 0 0 thoughrestrictingclaim of arrears to threeyears It would be prudentand I for the Govent to issue a circularlnotiflcationin this 5 I regard as earlyas possible to prevent6lrtherlitigation on this question Z A copy of this orderbe placed on the file of otherconnected 2 writ petitions CC I C OO 1 2 112011 PERMOD KOHLO Z BLS JUDGE r10 l mn Note Whether to be referredto theReporter2YES Z 11 31 1 0 t OD Q 1 S22 9r e4 4 welAnemr40nVe dUSm S e a 4n1 4 e Parkash Om 2014.06.16 15: 57 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document