69 e4 r J sl Wr 1 1 CWP Nol4394 of2010 1 In the Date ofdecision 11052011 11 CWP No 14394of2010 MajorSinghKhatkarand othersVs State andothers 121CWP No188 of2011 r SinghDhillon and othersVs StateofPunjab and others 0 31CWPN127480f2010 C3 I SahahGupta and othersVs StateofPunjab and others C9 lf4l CWP No9490 of2010 m SmtSantoshGuptaand othersVs StateofPunjab and another Z 51CWPNo 17961of2010 2 tr C ChamanLal Sethi and othersVs State and another I 61 CWP No 18486of2010 0 Z AlnarNath3hutaniand othersVs StateofPunjab and others m A71CWP Nol8846 of2010 Iw ChanderKanta and others Z Vs StateofPunjab and another C f81 CWP Nol9964 of2010 Kidar NathShannaand othersVs State and another 1r91CWP No9969 of2010 t Ajit Singhand others Vse StateofPunjaband another C 101 CWP No 2457of2011 Sat Pal Vs The StateofPunjab and others 6111CWP NoA647of2011 Ajit Singhand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 4U44m 1a i Anita 2014.05.28 12: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 70 1 44 CWP Nol4394 of2010 C21 r 6121CWP NoA166 of2011 GurcharanSinghBedi Vs StateofPunjab and others K131 CWP No 4123 of2011 GurcharanSinghand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 4141CWP No2975 of2011 RameshKumari Vs State andanother 00 m 151 CWP No 2886of2011 MangalSinghand others Vs Stateof Punjaband another 0 0 161 CWP NoA305of2011 I 5 SinghVs StateofPunjab andothers Z CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE PERMOD 141 KOHLI 0 Presentl I 4ChtatvVikas Clath MrAmrik Sin t dhUleTribhawan SinglaMGS Bal l 1 Z 4 MrDeepak GuptaAdvocatesfor tloetitione Qo 1 with MsCharu W2 Z 1 PERMOD KOHLI J 111all thesewrit petitionsis common based upon identicalfactsand same questionof law The petitionersare claiming benetltof the revised pay scales nee with effect from 19061971 the date when the similarly situated government were held entitled to the revised pay scales on completion of five years of service These petitionerswere denied beneftt 7WWWmwa ll r114 Ume Anita 2014.05.28 12: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 71 4 4 nln 4v6 en 4eel 1 P CWP N014394of2010 39 thoughlater all of them Were grantedthe benefit with effect from 16071975 This controversy earlier came up before this Court in CWP No2208 of 1989 Lekh Raj Khera and othersVs state of Punjaband another1This writ petitionwas allowed vide judgment dated 24032009 with the directionsl In view of the abovelegaland factualposition 1 this petitionsucceeds C partially are 0 directedto extendthebenefitofthe Payrevisionin C1 case of petitionerswef 1111971 instead of 9 1671975 Theyare lrther directed to fix the pay scale of the such of the petitionerswhose Z unrevised pay fallsbetweentwo stagesin the new Z time scale in therevisedscale in the next stage 1 1Z a period of four months from the date certi8ed OO copy of this order is served upon the competent r smo The consequentialbenefitbereleasedin Z 3 favourof the petitionerswithin a periodoftwo Om rnonthsthereafter 2032009 PEIOD KOHLI 1 JUDGEIO It is common case of the partiesthat all the petitioners ee are governed by the directionscontained in Lekh Raj Kheras case suprao nOticed hereinaboveHowever leamedcounsel appearing fOr the State respondents has expressedreservationin regardto grantof relief to these writ petitionersparticularlythosewho approachedthe Court after a long Wmmunwarw 41W1144 wemr Anita 2014.05.28 12: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 72 4 04 a 11 mNe CWP Nol4394 of2010 649 delayfor seekingthe relief As a matter of fact all the petitioners are seeking of thejudgment of Lekh RajKheras 6ase for their respectivebenefits on thequestionof delaythesewrit petitions were heardthough all the writ petitionsare covered by the rendered lll Lekh Raj Kherascase 1 tr The Statehasrelieduponvarious which are noticed 0 hereunder 0 I In the case of RegionalManagerAePe SRTC Vs N C5 and others I 200891 CourtCases 210 Honble the Supreme Court declinedthe prayer fOr regularisation Z of dailywagers frOmthe date of their initial engagement 2 111the year 1986 111the writ tr petitionfiled ile year 1999 on thegroundof delayand lachesthough I t Z In the case of Nadia DisttePrimarySchool Council and m another Vse SristidharBiswas and others 007912 Court va Cases779 Z 5 of whenthe Qm ofnineyeatSe The relevant are contained in paragraph11 of the judgment 11 In the present case the panel was preparedln 4ea 1980 and the petitionersapproachedthe court in 1989 afler the decision111 DibakarPal Such persons should not be givenany beneflt by the COUrt when theyallowed more than nine years to 1 r 14W6 w Anita 2014.05.28 12: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 73 W 1 veav r CWP No4394 of2010 C5 elapse Delay is very significantin matters of granting relief and court cannot come to the rescue of the persons who are not vigilantof theirrights Therefore the view taken by the High Court the delayof nine years cannot be countenanced 1 In Eastern 1 2008914 Supreme Court Cases 295 0 0 the benefit of additionalquantity of coal allottedto thecompany10 years t5 beforethe dateof fllingof the writ petitionIt hasbeenheld that inordinate delayon the part of the petitionerin making the motion for a writ is an Z groundfor refusing 0 eXerCiSediscretion under Article 226 of 0 theConstitution ofIndia I In the case of SS Balu and another vse Stateof Kerala and Z OtherS 2 Court Cases 479 Honble the Supreme Court made observations to deny Ol the relief when there is inordinate t delay W Z SC 17 It is also wellasettledprincipleof law that Om delaydefeatsequity The order was lSSuedon 15200 The appellantsdid not file any writ application the legalityand eW validitythereof Onlyatler the writ petitionsflled bY others were allowed and the Statelof Kerala preferredan appeal theyimpleaded themselves as It is now a trite ml4 b WWeln4 U4 e e44 ne e Anita 2014.05.28 12: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 74 d e PPIMI v a r 1 I 1916I l V 5 P2 CWP Nol4394 of2010 6 law that where the writ petitionerapproachesthe HighCourt after a longdela reliefsprayedfor may be deniedto themon the groundof delayand laches of the fact theyare similarly situated to the other candidatesWho obtain the Je I lSothUSnot possiblefor 1 US to issue any directionto the Stateof Kerala or 0 the Commissionto appointhe at this C0 stage In NDMC v Pan Singhthis Court held I 0 SCC p283para169 I In the case of Shiv Dass Vse Union of India nd others Z 200799 Supreme Court cases 274 the writ petitionerwas denied the r disability pension in the year 1983 He filed a writ petitionin the High I Courtin the year 2005 Thiswrit petitionwas dismissedbythe HighCourt C1 the questionof delay Z and laches The HonbleSupreme Court While OO the matter to the High Court made the observations 2 Z 10 In the case of pensionthe cause of action 1 actuallycontinuesfrom month to month That howevercannot be a OUnd to overlookdelaylIl 1 tIlingthe petition It would dependupon the fact el Sv If Petition 1S filed beyonda reasonable period say three years normallythe Court would rejectthe same or restrict the relief which could be grantedto a reasonableperiod of wmwvwe Anita 2014.05.28 12: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 75 I rleese IV 2 1 a CWP Nol4394 of2010 679 aboutthreeyears The HighCourtdid not examine whetheron merit the appellanthad a case If on meritsit would have for interference it would havedismissedthe writ petitionon that score alone Learnedcounsel appearingfor the respondentshave also 1 referredto variOUS judgmentof this Court and also the government instructionsin regardto ofthe 0 HighCourt U The State issued dated1072002 to all theFinancial C9 the Secretaries and the Secretaries I The are as under Z i9 Whereverthe rightsof the partieshavebeen 2 settled by a of the Court the State has r CO Z judgment even uptothe highestcourt of the land r m and the has attainedflnalitythen the m implementit in Z D its true spiritand command There 1S implicit obligation on the part of the Stte to grant same relief to other membersof the cadre whoseclaim 94e ii The StateGovernment shall as as possiblein any case not later than four months react and respondto a legal served upon it by any of its employees in redressal aswaweemnM4e wmo e 34 36a 4 Anita 2014.05.28 12: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 76 I m 1 Il 0 ee CWP Nol4394 of2010 e 689 of his of relief which has been grantedto his similarly situated in 4 furtherance to thejudgment of the Court Unless for reasons to be indicated111the reply the State feels to denysuch relief Needlessto POintout that denialmust neitherbe evasivenor 1 intended to circumventthe ordersofthe Court 5 6iiOIn the 0 event such an employee is compelled 0 to approachthe court of law the court I C5 awardsinterestandlorcosts while such a 0 petitionthen theexpenditure incurredbythe State Z including the costslinterest paid lll lrtheranceto 42 the ordersofthe Court shouldbe recovered from theerringofflcer L z iv 00 expectedto work out the detaiIsin to the above directions 7 and issue pervasive but Z to ensure compliance In the case of Stateof Rarnataka t4 Orse Vs c Lalitha 20069 2 SCC observedas underl 18 ServiceJUrlspnidence evolvedby this Court frorn time to time postulatesthat all persons mwm wmaw emhwamawor olb Anita 2014.05.28 12: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 77 9 CWP N014394 of2010 c 091 Only becauseone person has approached the court that would not mean that Persons similarlysituated shouldbe treated 73 The petitioners are similarly situatedas thewrit petitioners 111 m Lekh Raj Kheras case supra However it is fact that these writ C a petitionershave approached this 0 Court aRer the judgmentof Lekh Raj Cpl Kherascase for thesimilarrelief The State while thattheyare Slnlilarly situatedresistedtheirclaim onlyon the groundof delayin filing I he writ petitions The in Lekh RalKheras case has attained Z finalityand the State has the same vide its circular dated r 18082010issuedby the DistrictEducationOfficer cSE9 to all I the Masters etc The relevant instructionsfor its C are as under Z er As per letterunder referencedirections OO were vao issued to draw the arrears of the concerned with Z regard to grantofpayscalefrom l111971 instead ll of 16771975in terms of the reportof the Kothari 4 of by the Court in terms of the decisionin Lekh Raj Kheras case Thereforeif any petitioner of this writ petition1S pertaining to your school the due benefitbe given to him within 10 days and 9 6 Anita 2014.05.28 12: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 78 le l nsr IsW1e0 e b CWP No14394 of2010 10 receiptbe sent to this office While paymentto the petitionerthe Head ofthe School will ensure that the benefit has been correctly given to the petitioner as per If due to the of the school Head any petitionerremaineddeprivedfor paymen the 1 concemed SchoolHead will be responsiblefor the same 0 0 From the above I circular it is establishedthat the State has C9 the qua writ petitionersin Lekh Raj Kheras case I Instructions dated depictsGovernments Z policyto the attaining finalitynot only quathewrit petitionersbut also 111 respectto all non as well who are I similarly situatedand may beentitledto similarrelief These lnstructions to Z are general111 nature and apply all such cases wherever lll thejudgment against the State has attained finalityDespite rlo theseinstructions having beenissuedin the w year2002 the State1Sactingin thereofand Z similarly situated personsare left with no otheroptionbut to approach CL this Court time and again This has the effect of this Court with unnecessarylitigationand chocking thejusticedelivery system It mayalso implementthe Ci judgmentin respect to all similarly situated persons a Division Bench of this Court also issued generaldirectionsin this regard111the case of Satbir SinghVse State of Haryana2002 629Service CasesToday354 The relevant directionsare contained in paragraph 19 of this judgmentwhich 1e441WUU n e Anita 2014.05.28 12: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 79 V 41 w 1Irr5WV 411 4 aae CWP No14394of2010 r 119 are as underl 19 Be that as it may particularly ln the afore referred premises we still feel that it is the boundendutyof the Court to issue the directionsto the Statein the largerpublicinterest and for proper ofjusticel 1 Whereverthe rightsof the parties havebeen 0 settledby a of the Court the Statehas 0 I takenall remediesavailableto it in law againstthat C5 even uptothe highest court of the land and the judgmenthas attained finalitythen the Z 2 its true spiritand command There 1S implicit I on the part of the Stateto grant same C Z relief to other membersof the cadre whose claim m W2 iil The StateGovernment shall as Z as possiblein anycase not laterthanfour months react and respondto a legal served uponit byany of its employees in redressal of his of relief which has been e granted to his coemployeesimilarlySituated ln to thejudgment of the Court Unless for reasons to be indicatedin the reply the State feelscompelledto denysuch relief Needless to 0 6 0 nsewn6vsaAmw n w l llSeel Anita 2014.05.28 12: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 80 a k v194hl a4neoe 4 1 v 0 CWP Nol4394 of2010 6121 POlnt out that denial must neither be evasive nor intended to circumventthe ordersofthe Court iiiI In the event such an employeeis compelled to approachthe court of law the court awardsinterestandlorcosts while such a petitionthenthe incurredbytheState including the costslinterestpaid r 111furtherance to the ordersofthe Court should be recovered 0 from 0 theerring I C5 Oivl expectedto work out the detailsin to Z the above directions and issue pervasive but I to ensure 31 L3 It is a matter of 7 Z concern thatthe abovedirectionsissuedbythis t Courtasfar back as in the C year 2002 are beingfloutedwith The State has failed to its Vo to grant relief to similarly Z 15 Sltuatedpersons at its own level Under such lt cannot be permittedto pleaddelayand lacheswherethe Stateitself i1S responsiblefor 1Vel on account of C the Honble Supreme Courte Apart from the above it has also come on record that after Lekh Raj Kheras case a number of writ petitionscame to be filed in the year 2009and 2010 which havebeen decidedby this Court grantingthe aVem4 41111110 L 4 I ZIlIe Anita 2014.05.28 12: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 81 l6 1444 Vlll 4 1 e5b del P e r CWP Nol4394 of2010 139 similar relief as ln Lekh Raj Kheras case and the Statehas chosen not to preferany appealagainst The questionof revSxationof the salar 10 fact gives a recumngcause of action to the govemment employee as every month he loosessome amount from his salaryor retiral benefitson account of wrong fixation of salary Thus the doctrineof delayand laches cannot be permitted to be invokedas thumbrule in every C case The cited on behalf 0 0 policymatters In C Lalithas case supra9Honble the Court I C5 has clearlyheld that similarlysituatedpersons should not be treated I Similarly 111 Shiv Dasss case supra9 cited on behalfof the Z Honble the Supreme Court has againclearlyheld that 111 I A Full Benchof thisCourt lll the case of SarojKumari and t3 Z Others vse The state of Punjaband others 1998 651ServicesLaw Reporter266 have examinedthe questionof reefixationin the OO context of W2 Z 9 Learnedcounsel for the petitionersubmitted tl thatin case of wrongflxationof pay to which an employeemay be entitledunder the relevantrules lnstructions or even on account of a judgment 94ennee there1S no questionof any limitationas the wrong payment of salaryevery month is a wrong againsthim which givesnse to Cause tim 1 e Ve p V mom Anita 2014.05.28 12: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 82 1 e e 5 e 1 e e 4 V 66 a 0 CWP No143940f2010 r 6149 not computedaccordingto the relevant rules lnstructionsor ajudgment the employees in such a case has a rightto ask for a directionto the State Goveent or to the employerto flx the pay Y 8h frOmdaYOne in accordancewith the relevantrules and instructionsHowever while 1 granting the relief of arrears of pay etCe the same can be confinedto three 0 yearsand two months 0 which 1S the periodof limitationprovidedfor 0 getting a relief of realisationof arrears in a civil I suit Z 14 For the reasons we are of the Vlew that in cases whereonlyfixation ofpay I to the relevant judgment or a 1S 0 Z prayedfor thewrit petitioncannot be dismissed at oo the thresholdon the groundof delayand lachesbut the payment of arrears be restricted 7 Call to a Z reasonable period Threeyearsand two months Om would be considereda reasonableperiodas that 1S the periodfor which a person can ask for the C paymentofarrearsbeforea Civil Court The cause of the is a recurringcause Thus the ratio of thejudgment of the Full Bench 1S applicable on all four comers to the factsof this case on account of delayand laches thoughthe relief for arrears can be restrictedto a vl 41AlnaA v61 0 4 14Il I l n a3I Anita 2014.05.28 12: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 83 1 e r elIvbl911 9We4 4ZWnenm I r t CWP No4394 of2010 159 C ofthree years as observedby Honble theSupreme Court and Full Bench of this Court referredto hereinabove In view of the abovecircumstancesthesepetitionsare allowed in tenns of the judgmentin Lekh Raj Kheras case However the claim for arrears ls restrictedto three years preceding the filingof the writ petitions No costs i It is 81rtherdirectedthat all similarlysituatedgovemment r may be grantedthe relief ln terms of Lekh R Kheras case 0 0 thoughrestricting claim of arrears to three years It would be prudentand I 9 appropriatefor the Govemmentto issue a circularlnotificationin this I t Z A copy of this orderbe placed Oll the file of otherconnected 2 writ petitions I 44 11052011 Z BLS PERMOD KOHLO JUDGE m l 7 Note Whetherto be referredto theReporter2 Z YES Qm t 21 401nm5r46aeAeed O V 7 Anita 2014.05.28 12: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document