IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.:2736/2008 Decided on: 19.3. 2009 Bal Krishan. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the petitioner : Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal has passed the order Annexure P-1 on 13.5.1993. The operative portion of order dated 13.5.1993 reads thus: “In these circumstances, the application is allowed to the extent that the respondents are directed to give the applicant the revised pay scale of Library Attendant w.e.f. January 1, 1978 and pay him all the arrears within a period of three months from today.” 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 The petitioner sought certain clarification by way of Review Peition No. 40/93 of order dated 13.5.1993. The learned Tribunal passed the following order in Review Petition No.40/1993 on 18.11.1993: “In the present Review Petition the applicant has sought review of the judgment delivered on May 13, 1993 on the ground that even according to the respondents the applicant was entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 400-600 after January 1, 1978 and he has been granted the revised pay scale of Rs. 300-400 as on January 1, 1978. To us the petitioner is entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 400-600 after January 1, 1978 and if the respondents fail to grant this pay scale to him, he shall be at liberty to file fresh application. So far as the Review Petition is concerned we find no merit in the Review Petition and the same is hereby rejected in limine.” In sequel to order passed by the learned Tribunal in TA No. 47/86 on 13.5.1993 read in conjunction with order dated 18.11.1993 passed in Review Petition No. 40/93, the Director of Education requested the Principal in the month of March, 1994 to confirm whether the judgment of the Tribunal has been complied with or not. However, ‘U’ turn has been taken by the Director of Education vide letter dated 28.3.1994. It is evident from letter dated 28.3.1994 that the Director of Education has only referred to TA No. 47/1986 and has not taken into consideration the order passed on 18.11.1993 in Review Petition No. 40/93. What is intriguing to note is that despite the order passed by the learned Tribunal in TA No. 47/86 read with order dated 18.11.1993 in Review Petition No. 40/93, the petitioner has not been paid pay scale of Rs. 400-600. In case the respondent-State was aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Tribunal, it was open to it to assail the same. The orders passed by the Tribunal on 13.5.1993 and 18.11.1993 were not assailed by the 3 respondent-department and the same have attained finality. The orders passed by the competent Courts of law and Tribunals are required to be obeyed punctually. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure P-5 dated 28.3.1994 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release the pay scale of Rs. 400-600 to the petitioner with effect from1.1.1978 within a period of six weeks from today. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 19.3.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*