IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.W.P. 1885 of 2007. Date of decision: 22.12. 2009 Sh. B.R. Verma …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 yes For the Petitioner: Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Central Government Standing Counsel. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner has sought judicial review of order dated 16.5.2007 of Central Administrative Tribunal (Chandigarh Bench), whereby his Original Application No. 1028-HP-2002, seeking a direction to the respondents for the release of pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 w.e.f. 1.6.1989, with all consequential benefits, including re-fixation of monthly pension, has been dismissed. Review has been sought by 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. 2. Petitioner was working as Assistant in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in the capacity of U.D.C. up to 31.5.1985. He was promoted as Assistant w.e.f. 1.6.1989. Based on the recommendation of 5th Pay Commission, pay scales of Assistants working in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence were revised to Rs.1400-2300. Assistants working in some other Departments of the Central Government were granted the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900. It appears that the Assistants working in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence represented to their Director for the grant of same pay scales to them which had been granted to the Senior Assistants working in other Departments, i.e., the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900. Some of the Assistants working in the area, falling within the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court, filed Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Two such Original Applications were filed in the year 1992 - 3 - and were registered as O.A. Nos. 1869 and 2870 of 1992. Petitioner had been granted the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900, vide Office Memorandum dated 22.2.1995 (Annexure P5). This was done in pursuance of some order dated 29.12.1994/2.1.1995, received from the D.R.I. Head Quarters, New Delhi. Pay of the petitioner was accordingly fixed in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900, vide Annexure P5. The said order Annexure P5 was lateron withdrawn vide Office Memorandum dated 29.3.1995 (Annexure P6). The reason for withdrawal of letter Annexure P5 was that the aforesaid two Original Applications No. 1869 and 2870 of 1992 were pending in Delhi Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in which some Assistants of the same Department working in the area of Delhi had sought a direction for grant of scale of Rs.1640- 2900. Those Original Applications were disposed of vide judgment dated 5.4.1999 and the petitioners therein were ordered to be given the higher scale of Rs.1640- 2900. Some more Original Applications, including Original Application No. 286 of 2000 titled Krishan Lal and six others - 4 - versus Union of India and others were also disposed of. Annexure P7 is the copy of order passed in the aforesaid Original Application No. 286 of 2000. As per this order, the petitioners therein were to be given the higher pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 in the same manner as had been ordered in the earlier two Original Applications of 1992. However, the pecuniary benefits flowing from the grant of higher pay scale were restricted to one year prior to the day of institution of the petition, because the claim beyond one year was held to be barred by time, presumably in view of the provision of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. 3. The present petitioner retired from service on 30.6.1995. His monthly pension was fixed, taking in to account his pay in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600. He filed Original Application before the Tribunal in the year 2002 seeking a direction to the respondents that he be also given the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 as had been done in the case of other Assistants, who had filed Original applications before the Delhi Bench of - 5 - Central Administrative Tribunal. His Application has been dismissed with the findings that Application was barred by time and that there are some judgments of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court, rendered subsequent to the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi Bench in the aforesaid Applications of 1992, to the effect that it is not within the domain of the courts and Tribunals to decide about the pay scales of Government employees, working in different Offices though holding the same designations. 4. petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 16.5.2007, passed in his aforesaid Original Application No. 1028-HP-2002. It is alleged that when other Assistants working in the same Department have been granted pay scale of Rs.1640-2900, pursuant to the orders passed in the aforesaid two Original Applications of 1992 and the Original Application No. 286 of 2000, titled Krishan Lal and six others versus Union of India and others, petitioner is also entitled to the said pay scale on the - 6 - principle of equality, enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel representing the respondents and gone through the record. 6. Learned Tribunal while disposing of the Original Application of the petitioner has not taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in Ashwani Kumar and others versus State of Bihar and others (1997) 2 SCC 1, wherein it has been held that where many persons are affected by an action and only some of them approach the Court and succeed, the benefit granted to them, in the litigation should be made available to all others also who do not join them, as ignoring them would amount to violation of fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. No doubt, the petitioner approached the Tribunal after long time but there were reasons for his not - 7 - approaching the Tribunal earlier. He retired from service in the year 1995. Original Applications filed in 1992 on account of pendency of which, the benefit granted to him initially vide Annexure P5 had been withdrawn vide Annexure P6, had been disposed of in April, 1999. In the meanwhile petitioner retired from service. He retired in the month of June, 1995. It is quite likely that he was not keeping track of the aforesaid two Original Applications. It appears that as soon as he came to know that those Applications had been allowed and higher pay scales had been granted to the Assistants working in the Department, he filed the Original application. His claim for arrears of salary, if any, and monthly pension on account of revision of pay could have been restricted to one year prior to the date of filing of the petition as had been done in the case of Krishan Lal, (supra) copy of the order passed wherein is Annexure P7. Outright dismissal of his application on account of limitation was not justified, especially when the dismissal of the application, which impliedly - 8 - amounts to non-grant of higher pay scale to the petitioner, results in infringement of his fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Apex Court in Ashwani Kumar and others versus State of Bihar and others (supra). 8. Learned Tribunal has also fallen in error in dismissing the claim on merits with the reasoning that in several cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Delhi High Court have rejected the claims for grant of higher pay scale on the plea that persons of similar categories working in other Departments have been recommended and granted higher pay scales. All the cases relied upon by the learned Tribunal pertained to the Stenographers. It is a matter of common knowledge that Stenographers in superior Institutions/ Departments have to be more skilled than the Stenographers employed in subordinate Offices of Directorate level or even lower level. It is because of this reason that Stenographers working in different Departments are given different pay scales. - 9 - 9. In any case when some of the Assistants working in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence have been granted the higher pay scale of Rs.1640-2900, denial of this scale to the petitioner would amount to violation of his fundamental right as observed hereinabove. This is especially so when once higher pay scale had been granted, vide Annexure P5 but was withdrawn by Annexure P6, only for the reason that two Original Applications instituted by some of the Assistants working in Delhi area in the year 1992 had been pending before the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, which applications were lateron decided in favour of Assistants. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we allow the present petition, set aside the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and direct the respondents to re-fix the pay of the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 with effect from the date he was promoted as Assistant, i.e., 1.6.1989 and also to re-fix his monthly pension based on his revised pay on the date of - 10 - his retirement, i.e., 30.6.1995 and to pay him the arrears of monthly pension for the period starting from one year prior to the date of filing of the Original Application up to date and also to pay him the monthly pension on the revised rate from this date onwards. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Surjit Singh),J. December 22, 2009 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)