CWP No.9855 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.9855 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.03.2010 **** Balbir Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and another . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. S.P. Thukral, Advocate for the petitioner(s) Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This order shall dispose of CWP No.9855, 9903, 9958, 10510, 15062, 15113 & 18670 of 2009; 553, 557, 3455 & 4370 of 2010 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. The petitioners are the ex-officials of the Agriculture Department, Government of Punjab, who have retired from different ranks i.e. Additional/Joint/Deputy Directors, Agriculture Development Officer etc. They seek quashing of the Government Circular dated 18.09.1992 (Annexure P1), whereby, the benefit of revised pay-scales granted to various categories of Officers CWP No.9855 of 2009.doc - 2 – of the Agriculture/Horticulture Department, was restricted w.e.f. 01.01.1991 instead of 01.01.1986. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.9855 of 2009. (2). The petitioner joined the Punjab Agriculture Service (Class-II) on the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission w.e.f. 01.08.1974. He was further promoted to the post of Joint Director, Agriculture on 25.08.2000 and held the said post till he retired on 31.08.2004 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner’s grievance is that the State Government, illegally restricted the grant of the revised pay-scales to the officers of the Department of Agriculture/Horticulture w.e.f. 01.01.1991 instead of 01.01.1986 though employees/officers of the other Government Departments were granted such revised pay- scales w.e.f. 01.01.1986. (3). There is indeed no dispute that some of the Joint Directors/other officers of the Agriculture Department approached this Court by way of CWP No.457 of 1995 (Prem Singh Gill and others v. State of Punjab) raising the similar issue. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by a learned CWP No.9855 of 2009.doc - 3 – Single Judge vide judgement dated September 29, 2006 in the following terms:- “For the reasons aforementioned the present writ petition is allowed and order Annexure P-2 is modified. The scale of Rs.4125-5600 shall be granted to the petitioners with effect from 1.1.1986 with all consequential benefits. The arrears payable to the petitioners on this score would be calculated and released to them within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgement. The petitioners would also be at liberty to file a representation for the grant of pay scale of Rs.4500-6100 as mentioned hereinabove within a period of four weeks and in case any such representation is filed the same shall be decided within a period of three months thereafter. (4). The State Government preferred Letter Patents Appeal No.94 of 2007 which has also been dismissed vide order dated April 24, 2007. It appears that the above-stated judgement has attained finality. (5). The petitioner as well as the writ-petitioners in the other connected matters are similarly-situated officers of the Agriculture Department. No doubt they did not approach this Court soon after the impugned Circular dated 21.02.1992 was issued and the objection raised on behalf of the respondents in their counter-affidavit that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches, carries CWP No.9855 of 2009.doc - 4 – some weight. However the question that arises for consideration is should the petitioner(s) be not treated at par with their juniors/seniors who held the same posts and have got the revised pay-scales, retrospectively, especially when the claim put-forth by the petitioner(s) entails revision of their retiral benefits thereby giving them a recurring cause of action? (6). Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the considered view that once the action of the respondents in restricting the benefit of revised pay-scales w.e.f. 01.01.1991 as against 01.01.1986 has been held to be in conflict with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution, the objection raised by the respondents against entertainment of this writ petition at a belated stage is inconsequential as the respondents cannot be allowed to take undue advantage of their unconstitutional action. A Writ Court in any case is not precluded from entertaining a belated claim, if it otherwise merits acceptance. The cardinal principle in such like cases would be to strike balance by restricting the retrospectivity of the consequential benefits. CWP No.9855 of 2009.doc - 5 – (7). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petitions are allowed in part; the impugned Circular dated 18.09.1992 (Annexure P1) qua the petitioners is also quashed with the following directions, which have been consented to by their respective learned counsel also:- i. the petitioners shall be entitled for the grant of revised pay-scales w.e.f. 01.01.1986 instead of 01.01.1991. However, they shall not be entitled to the arrears of pay for the period from 01.01.1986 to 31.12.1990; ii. the pay of the petitioners shall be notionally fixed and their pension/other retiral benefits shall be revised accordingly. iii. the petitioners, however, shall be entitled to the arrears of revised pension with effect from their respective dates of retirement(s). iv. the petitioners who are still in service shall not be entitled to the arrears of pay (w.e.f. 01.01.1986) but their pay shall be notionally fixed and the consequential arrears and/or revised pay shall be paid to them w.e.f. 01.01.2010 onwards only. CWP No.9855 of 2009.doc - 6 – The needful shall be done as early as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (8). Ordered accordingly. (9). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 17.03.2010 vishal shonkar