CWP(T) No. 6988/2008 05.10.2010 Present: Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. for the respondents/State There is no dispute that the judgment dated 23.6.1995 passed by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1189/95 titled as Tej Ram vs. State of H.P. has attained finality. The State went up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the petitioner therein was held entitled to higher pay scale w.e.f. 23.6.1995. 2. There is also no dispute that petitioners were appointed as Bio Gas Supervisors. From the record, it also cannot be disputed that petitioners are similarly situated to the petitioner in Tej Ram (supra). On the strength of this judgment petitioners are also seeking similar benefits. 3. It is the State’s contention that this judgment is in personam and consequently directions issued are confined to the case of the petitioner therein and not applicable qua the other employees of the respondents. It is also contended that the petition filed in the year 2000 deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. Instead of taking recourse to their remedies in accordance with law petitioners herein kept on watching the proceedings before various judicial authorities and approached the Court only when the decision came in the affirmative. 4. Now it cannot be disputed that directions in Tej Ram (supra) were subsequently followed and implemented with respect to similarly situated petitioners. In O.A. No. 613/1998, titled as Tek Singh & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Anr. decided on 13.3.2000 following order was also passed by the Tribunal : “The facts of this case are fully covered in case OA No.1189/95. In this O.A. i.e. 1189/95 the respondents were directed that one more channel of promotion to the petitioner be granted or in the alternative, one higher scale be given, if there is none at the moment. The petitioner was in the scale of Rs.1500-2640/- and the Government in pursuance of our order dated 23rd June, 1995, in the above O.A., granted the scale of Rs.1800-3200, vide Annexure- A6 dated 19.12.1997, w.e.f. 23.6.1995. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicants in this case should also be granted the same scale, already granted in OA No.1189/95 i.e. the scale of Rs.1800-3200, because these applicants are also similarly situated., as the applicants in OA No.1189/95. We have perused the facts of this case and also gone through the judgment carefully, in OA No.1189/95. We are convinced that the present case is fully covered by our order in OA No.1189/95. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the case of all these petitioners on the lines of OA No.1189/95 titled as Tej Ram Kashyap vs. State of H.P., for the grant of scale of Rs.1800-3200/-. With these observations, the original application is finally disposed of, with no orders as to costs.” 5. In this view of the matter the objection of the State that there is delay on the part of the petitioners is untenable in law. The Tribunal passed the order in the year 2000.This petition was also filed in the same year. In fact they were forced to litigate. Petitioners were well within their rights to approach the Tribunal for getting same monetary benefits which stood accorded to other similarly situated employees as per their entitlement . 6. Further, from the Seniority List (Annexure A-1) it is apparent that petitioner in Tej Ram (supra) was junior to the petitioners herein. Respondents accepted the directions. In Tek Singh (supra) petitioners also were entitled to such benefits. It cannot be said that the order passed by the Tribunal is in personam and not in rem. All similarly situated employees are entitled to same benefits. Consequently direction is issued to the respondents to consider the petitioners’ case for according benefits on the lines of directions issued in Tej Ram (supra) and Tek Singh (supra). 7. Consequential action be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Arrears, if any, be also disbursed within the aforesaid period, failing which, thereafter petitioners shall be entitled to interest @9% per annum. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. October 05, 2010 (rana)