SO ev re0011znV v 1 4d J 4 4P r CWPNo4394 of2010 19 IntheHighCourt ofPunjabandHaryanaat Chandigarh Dateofdecisionll052011 11 CWP No 14394of2010 MajorSinghKhatkarand othersVs StateofPunjaband others 21CWP NoA188of2011 f 1 SinghDhillon andothers Vs StateofPunjab andothers Ct 0 31CWP No2748 of2010 0 I SahahGuptaand othersVs StateofPunjaband others Cs9 A41 CWP No9490 of2010 m3 SmtSantoshGuptaandothers Vs StateofPunjaband another Z A51CWPNol7961 of2010 ChamanLal Sethi andothers Vs StateofPunjaband another I 61 CWP Nol8486 of2010 Z AmarNath Bhutaniand othersVs StateofPunjaband others 010 A79CWP No 18846of2010 41 r7 ChanderKanta andothers Vs StateofPunjaband another Z 81 CWP Nol9964 of2010 0m Kidar Nath Shannaand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 191CWP No19969 of2010 t Ajit Singhand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 101 CWP No 2457 of2011 C Sat Pal VseThe State ofPunjaband others 6111CWP No 4647 of2011 r Ajit Singhand others Vs State ofPunjaband another 14 e Uma 2014.07.03 11: 22 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 51 6 a r CWP Nol4394 of 2010 29 e 121 CWP NoA166 of2011 GurcharanSinghBedi Vs StateofPunjaband others K131 CWP NoA123 of2011 GurcharanSinghand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 141 CWP No 2975 of2011 RameshKumari Vs StateofPunjab andanother m 151 CWP No 2886 of2011 C MangalSinghand others Vs Stateof Punjaband another 0 CO 161 CWP NoA305 of2011 Z C9 Charanjit SinghVs StateofPunjabandothers Z CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Presentl Mr RK Arora MrM Bhagirath MrSameer SachdevaMs I Alka Chatrath MrNikas Chatrath Mrik SinghMr KPS Sandhu Mrfribhawan SinglaMrfS Bal Mr Harinder Sharma MrSK Arora MrAnil ChopraMrSunnySinglaand Z MrDeepakGuptaAdvocates for thepetitioners QO Mruneet GuptaAddl Advocate General Punjabwith lvlsCharu Tuli Senior DAG Punjabfor the 7 Z PERMOD KOHLI J Om 1 Controversy in all these writ petitionsls common based upon identical factsand same questionoflaw The petitionersare claimingbenefit of the revised pay scales e with effect from 19061971 the date when the similarly situated government were held entitled to the revised pay scales on completionof flve years of service Thesepetitioners were denied beneflt IumImvmw 4mrr Uma 2014.07.03 11: 22 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 52 e eene4V41 044 rS 1 CWP Nol4394 of2010 39 r thoughlater all of them were grantedthe benefit with effect from 1071975 This controversyearlier came up before this Court in CWP No2208 of 1989 cLekhRaj Khera and others Vse State ofPunjab and anotherl This writ petitionwas allowed vide judgmentdated withthefollowing directionsl In view of the abovelegaland factualposition j this petitionsucceedspartially are C directedto extendthe bene8tofthe Payrevision in 0 0 case of petitionerswe 1 1 971 instead of I t9 163975 Theyare furtherdirected to fix the pay 2C scale of the such of the petitionerswhose er Z unrevisedpay falls betweentwo stagesin the new t time scale in the revised scale in the next stage I Theprocessoffixation ofpaybecompleted within C a periodof four months from the date certified Z copyof this order is served upon the competent r authorityThe beneflt be releasedin W2 Z favour of the petitions within a periodof two Llm rnonthsthereafler 24032009 PERMOD K0HLI9 JUDG 1 It is common case of the partiesthat all the petitioners are 1eame govemedby the directions contained lll Lekh Raj Kheras case Csupra noticed hereinabove However leamed counsel appearingfor the State has expressedreservationin regardto grantof relief to these writ petitionersparticularlythose who approachedthe Court a8er a long 446 ve I Uma 2014.07.03 11: 22 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 53 eann e 4a e CWP No4394 of2010 49 e delayfor seekingthe relief As a matter of fact all the petitioners are seeking of the judgmentof Lekh Raj Kheras case for their respective benefits In view ofthe objectionraisedbythe 1 on thequestionof delaythesewrit petitions were heardthoughprincipally all the writ petitions are coveredby the judgment rendered in Lekh Raj Kheras case 1 The Statehas relied upon VMlOUS judgments which are noticed hereunder 0 C In the case of RegionalManager AePe SRTC Vse Ne C9 and others 200891 Supreme Court Cases 210 Honble I the SupremeCourt declined the prayer for regularisation of daily wagers Z from the date of their initial engagement lll the year 1986 in the writ petitionfiled in the year 1999 on the groundof delayand laches though I theywere entitledto such reliefunder an ofthe Coun C3 Z In the case of Nadia Distte Prary School Council and Q1 another Vse Sristidhar Biswas and others 420079 12 SupremeCourt 2 Cases 779 the Court declined the reliefon thegroundofdelayin the matter Z whenthe writ petition was filed aer a periodof nine years Il The relevant observationsare contained Ul paragrh 11 of the judgment which are asunderl 11 In the presentcase the panelwas prepared lIl waeW 1980 and the petitionersapproached the court in 1989 aller the decision ln Dibakar Pal Such personsshould not be givenany benefit by the COUrt when theyallowed more than nine years to Ine se Uma 2014.07.03 11: 22 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 54 S7eS1m0 vIeV49elle6 e ee CWP Nol4394 of2010 65 elapse Delay 1S verysigniflcantin matters of relief and court cannot come to the rescue of the persons who are not vigilantof their rights Therefore the View taken by the High Court the delay of nme yearscannot be countenanced 1 In Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs DugalKumar 6200814 r Court Cases 295 a writ petition was filed after a decadeclaiming 0 0 the benefit of additional quantity of coal allotted to the company 10 years I C5 beforethe dateof filingof the writ petitionIt hasbeen held that inordinate I delayon the part of the petitionerin makingthe motion for a writ is an Ct Z groundfor re81singto exercise discretion under Article 226 of 4 0 the ConstitutionofIndia I In the case of SS Balu and another vse State of Kerala and others 200992 SupremeCourt Cases 479 Honble the SupremeCourt Z made followingobservationsto denythe relief when there is inordinate QO delayl W2 Z C 17 It is also wellesettledprincipleof law that Il delay defeats equity The Governt order was issued on 154m2002 The appellants did not file any writ applicationquestioningthe legalityand 9oe validitythereof OnlyaRer the writ petitionsfiled by others were allowed and the State of Kerala preferred an appeal they impleaded themselves as It is now a trite I414W l k6 1 Uma 2014.07.03 11: 22 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 55 ee meeeVV PP 1 4 ekeeeeRel baV CWP N014394 of2010 69 r law that where the writ approaches the HighCourt afler a long delay reliefs prayedfor rnaybe denied to them on the groundof delayand 1 lachesirrespectiveof the fact theyare similarly situatedto the other candidates who obtain the bene6tofthe It is thus not for 1 US to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the Commission to appointthe appellants at this 0 C0 stageIn NDMC v Pan Singhthis Court held I C5 SCC p283para169 I In the case of Shiv Dass Vse Union of India nd others Z C20079 SupremeCourt cases 274 the writ petitionerwas denied the disability pensionin the year 1983 He Sled a writ petitionin the High Court in the year 2005 This writ petitionwas dismissedby theHighCourt I C thequestion of delayand laches The Honble Supreme Coun Z while remandingthe matter to the High Court made the following QO observationsl 7 Z 10 In the case of pensionthe cause of action tl actuallycontinues from month to month That however cannot be a groundto overlook delayin filing the petition It would dependupon the fact 4eP of each case If petition 1S flled beyonda reasonable period say three years normallythe Court would rejectthe same or restrict the relief w could be grantedto a reasonableperiodof VSPYI164611 deeeL4naOaw Is I M I4 Uma 2014.07.03 11: 22 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 56 610a619 4 0cm n0c199Inw Ol 14 4 CWP Nol4394 of 2010 71 aboutthreeyears The HighCourt did not examine whether on merit the appellant had a case If on meritsit would have for interference it would have dismissed the writ petition on thatscore alone Il Learned counsel appearing for the have also referredto various judgmentof this Court and also the government 0 instructions in regard to ofthe HighCourt 0 0 The StateofPunjabissued instructionsdated17072002 to all theFinancial I Commissionersthe PrincipalSecretariesand the Administrative Secretaries C I to the GovernmentofPunjab The instnlctionsare as underl Z o Wherever the rightsof the partieshave been settledby a judgment of the Court the State has takenall remediesavailableto it in law againstthat I judgmenteven uptothe highestcourt of the land Z and the judgmenthas attained finalitythen the m Statemust acceptthejudgmentand implement it in 3 Z its true spiritand command There is tmplicit obligationon the part of the State to grant same relief to other membersof the cadre whose claim was basedupn identical factsand pointof w iio The State Governmentshall as expeditiously er as possiblein any case not later than four months react and respondto a legal Servedupon it by any of its in redressal e 4144O Uma 2014.07.03 11: 22 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 57 rIe we dll 000d41V 0e140e91 16 Il9 0 4 5P CWP Nol4394 of2010 689 of his of relief which has been graMed to his similarlysituated 111 81rtherance to thejudgmentof the Court Unless for reasons to be indicated in the reply the State feelscompelled to denysuch relief Needless to pointout thM denial must neitr be evasive nor 1 intendedto circumvent the ordersofthe Court r iiil In the event such an employee is compelled 0 C0 to approachthe court of law whereupon the court C9 awardsinterestandlor costs while allowingsuch a I petitionthentheexpenditure incurred bythe State Z includingthe costslinterestpaidin furtheranceto tZ the ordersofthe Court should be recovered from 0 theerring0s 6ivoThe concernedquartersofthe Govemment are Z expected to work out the details in lrtheranceto CQ the above directions and issue pervasivebut m2 Z definite instructionsto all its forthwith Om to ensure compliance 31 In the case of State of Rarnataka Orse Vs Ce Lalitha e 200612 SCC 747 Honble the SupremeCourt while consideringthe right ofsimilarlysituated persons observedas under 18 Service jurisprudence evolved by this Coun frorn time to time postulatesthat all persons e e 0e 11W41444v Uma 2014.07.03 11: 22 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 58 4 e vees4 aa ee e 1 CWP Nol4394 of2010 9 e similarly sihlatedshouldbe treatedsimilarly Only because one person has the court that would not mean that persons similarlysituated shouldbe treateddifferentlyee 53 I haveheardthe leamedcounselfor theparties at length The are similarly situatedas the writ petioners111 m Lekh Raj Kheras case olpr4 However it is a fact that these writ ir have this Court aRer the judgmentof Lekh Raj 0 0 Kherascase for thesimilarrelief The Statewhile concedingthat theyare C5 situated resistedtheir claim onlyon the groundof delayin Oling I the writ petitionsThe judgment in Lekh Raj Kheras case has attained Z finalityand the State has implemented the same vide its circular dated 1 18082010issuedby the District Education Officer CSE9Gurdaspurto all Q the Masters etc The relevant instructions for its I are as under1 Z 4 As per letter under reference directions were 00 issuedto draw the arrears of the concemed with 3 Z regard to grantofpayscale from 111971 instead 13 r of 1677975 in terms of the reportof the Kothari Commissionwithin a periodof 15 daysNow Civil Writ Petition No806212010 has also been disposed 1 of by the Court in terms of the decision in Lekh Raj Kheras case Therefore if any petitionerof this writ petitionis pertainingto your school the due beneSt be givento himwithin 10 days and Uma 2014.07.03 11: 22 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 59 01440 S z414ae e114Wn SW 1 111 n 4 CWPNol4394 of2010 6100 receiptbe sent to this offlce While releasing to the pe880nerthe Head of the School will ensure that the benefit has been correctly givento the petitioner as per instructionslrules If due to the negligence of the school Head any remained deprivedfor pay the 1 concernedSchoolHead will be for the same 0 C3 From the above circular it is established that the State has I C5 the judgmentqua writ petitioners in Lekh Raj Kheras case I Instructionsdated 1702002 referredto above clearlydepictsGovemments Z policyto implementthe attainingfinalitynot only qua the writ Z petitioners but also in respectto all non as welI who are similarlysihlatedand may be entitledto similar relief These instructions C are generalin nature and applyin all such cases wherever the judgment Z against the State has attained finality Despitethese instructions having Oo beenissued in the year 2002 the Stateis actingin derogationthereof and 2 Z similarly situatedpersonsare leR with no other optionbut to approach this Qm Court time and again This has the effect of burdening this Coun with unnecessary litigation and chockingthe justicedeliverysystem It may also be noticed that not onlythe Govemmentitself has decidedto implement the c judgmentin respect to all nUarlysituated persons a Division Bench of this Court also issued generaldirectionsin this regardin the case of Satbir SinghVse State of Haryana 2002 29Service Cases Today 354 The relevant directions are contained in 19 of this judgmentwhich Uma 2014.07.03 11: 22 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 60 eae 4 mn l 1 9l421e61 dl JI e e r eW CWPNol4394 of2010 6119 r areas under1 19 Be that as it may particularlyin the aforea referred premiseswe still feel that it is the bounden dutyof the Court to issue the following S directions to the Statein the largerpublicinterest and for properadministrationofjustice m o Wherever the rightsof the partieshave been Q settledbya of the Court the Statehas 0 0 takenall remediesavailableto it in law againstthat I 0 judgment even uptothe highestcourt of the land and the judgmenthas attained flnality then the Z Statemust acceptthejudgmentand implement it in 2 its tnle spiritand command There is implicit I obligation on the part of the State to grant same t relief to other membersof the cadre whose claim Z was basedupon identical factsand pointof law CO io The StateGovernmentshall as expeditiously Z as possiblein any casenot later thanfour months rl react and respondto a legal served upon it by any of its employeesin redressal of his of relief which has been 4m gramedto his similarly situated 111 furtheranceto the judgmentof the Court Unless for reasons to be indicated lll the replythe State feels compelledto denysuch relief Needless to 44464 Uma 2014.07.03 11: 22 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 61 e449mw 012P IlhIe41 L 44drl Ie91 1Il6 n 0 01 4 cP CWP Nol4394 of2010 121 pointout that denial must neither be evasive nor intended to circumvent the orders ofthe Court iio In the event such an employeeis compelled to approachthe court of law whereupon the court awardsinterestandlor costs while allowingsuch a petitionthenthe incurredbytheState m includingthe costslinterestpaidin Olrtheranceto 0 the ordersofthe Court should be recovered from 0 0 theerringofficer I C9 6iv9The concernedquartersofthe Govemmentare I expectedto work out the details in Slrtheranceto Z the above directions and lssue pervasivebut definiteinstructionsto all its forthwith to ensure compliance I r It is a matter of concern thatthe abovedirectionsissued bythis Z Court as far back as in the year 2002 are beingflouted with impunity The CO State has failed to dischargeits obligationto grant relief to similarly 7 Z situatedpersons at its own level Under such circumstances it cannot be Oa pennitted to pleaddelayand lacheswherethe Stateitself is responsible for unnecessary litigationwhich could be conveniently tackled at administrative level on account of concluded and bindingjudgments of this Court and the c Honble SupremeCourt Apartfrom the above it has also come on record that afler Lekh Raj Kheras case a number of writ petitionscame to be filed in the year 2009 and 2010 which have been decided by this Court grantingthe 44A4 Uma 2014.07.03 11: 22 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 62 00e111461119 464171Ueml9e 4V1 f 6e0 eee CWP Nol4394 of2010 139 C similarrelief as in Lekh Raj Kheras case and the Statehas chosen not to preferany appealagainst The questionof reIxation of the salary 111 fact ves a recurringcause of action to the governt employee as every month he looses some amount from his salaryor retiral beneStson account of wrong fixation of salary Thus the doctrineof delayand laches cannot be 1 permitted to be invoked as thumbrule in every case The cited on behalfofthe Statemostlypertained to appointment matters seniorityand 0 U Policymatters In Ce Lalithas cse supraoHonble the Supreme Court I 9 has clearlyheld that similarlysituated persons should not be treated Similarlyin Shiv Dasss case 6supral cited on behalf of the Z Honble the SupremeCourt has again clearlyheld that in 2 casesofpensionat the most reliefcould be restrictedto threeyears I A Full Bench of this Court in the case of SarojKumari and C others vse The state of Punjaband others 1998 059Services Law Z Reporter266 have examinedthe questionof reefixationln the context of m delayin approaching the Court wherein it hasbeenheld as underl V2 Z 9 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted Qe that in case of wrong flxation of pay to which an employeemay be entitled under the relevant rules instructions or even on account of a judgment 1e thereis no questionof any limitation as the wrong paymentof salary every month lS a continuing wrongagainsthim which gives nse to recurring causeof action eachtime he is paidsalarywhich is Uma 2014.07.03 11: 22 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 63 ewerermm eoWIredee411me e9 CWP No14394of2010 014 r not computedaccordingto the relevant rules instructions or ajudgmentthe employees in such a case has a rightto ask for a direction to the State Goveent or to the nployer to flx the pa correctlyrightfrom dayone in accordancewith the relevant rules and instructions However while 1 granting the relief of arrears of pay etc the same r can be conflned to three years and two months 0 0 which is the periodof limitation providedfor I C5 gettinga relief of realisation of arrears in a civil r suit r Z 14 For the foregoing reasons we are of the view ct that in cases where only8xation of pay according r 4f I to the relevant ruleslinstructions or a judgnt 1S l prayedfor thewrit petitioncannot be dismissed at Z thethresholdon the groundofdelayand lachesbut C1 r the paymentof arrears can be restricted to a e7 Z reasonableperiod Three years and two months r would be considered a reasonableperiodas that is 1 the period for which a person can ask for the paymentofarrears before a Civil Court e The cause of the petitionersis a recurringcause Thus the ratio of the judgmentof the Full Bench is applicableon all four comers to the factsof this case Petitioners rightcannot be defeated merelyon account of delayand laches thoughthe relief for arrears can be restrictedto a period eew4rmaeW Uma 2014.07.03 11: 22 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 64 h rVaamlrWeOWeeme u 6S Il414 0 1 1 7 r CWP Nol4394 of2010 159 r ofthreeyears as observedby Honble the Supreme Court and Full Bench of this Court referredto hereove In view of the abovecircumstancesthesepetitionsare a11owed in temls of the in Lekh Raj Kheras case However the claim for l arrears ls restrictedto threeyearspreceding the filingof the writ petitions No costs 1 It is Slrther directed that all similarlysituated governt 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 Govemment to issue a circularoti6cation in this C5 I regard as earlyas possible to prevent61rtherlitigation on this question Z A copy of this orderbe placed on the file of other connected writ petitions C e 1 t 11052011 ERMOD KOHLIO Z BLS JUDGE r Le W7 Note Whetherto be referredto theReporter2YES Z ll 6 1 2c5 t1 C 4 9 maeeenaae e O Uma 2014.07.03 11: 22 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document