60 n1 e4 1 rS n4 1 1 b CWP No4394 of2010 19 In theHighCourt ofPunjab andHaryana at Chandigarh Date ofdecisionl 11052011 A11 CWP No 14394of2010 MajorSinghKhatkar andothersVsstate ofPunjaband others 21CWP NoA1880f2011 Pe e SinghDhillon andothersVs StateofPunjab and others r 0 31CWPNol2748of2010 0 SahahGuptaand othersVs StateofPunjab and others 9 A41 CWP N019490of2010 I SmtSantoshGuptaand others Vs StateofPunjaband another Z 51CWPNol7961 of2010 C Ct ChamanLal Sethi andothers Vs StateofPunjaband another I 61 CWP No8486 of2010 r0 Z Amar Nath Bhutani andothersVs StateofPunjab and others CQ 79CWP Nol8846 of2010 vme ChanderKanta andothersVs StateofPunjaband another Z 81 CWP No 19964of2010 CL Kidar Nath Shannaand others Vs StateofPunjab and another 91 CWP No9969 of2010 t Ajit Singhand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 101 CWP No457 of2011 C Sat Pal Vs The State ofPunjaband others OllICWPN0A6470f2011 1 AjitSinghand others Vs StateofPunjaband another meO Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.03 11: 06 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 61 1 e CWP No4394 of2010 029 e 0121CWP NoA166 of2011 GurcharanSinghBedi Vs StateofPunjaband others K131 CWP NoA1230f2011 GurcharanSinghandothers Vs StateofPunjaband another f141CWP No975 of2011 RameshKumari Vs StateofPunjab andanother 1 151 CWP No 2886 of2011 tr MangalSinghand others Vs Stateof Punjaband another 0 C0 161 CWP NoA305 of2011 40 Charanjit SinghVs StateofPunjab andothers I Z CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI 0 Presentl Mr RKArora MrYM MrSameer Sachdeva Ms I Alka Chatrath MrNikas Chatrath Mrik SinghMr KPS Sandhu Mrrribhawan SinglaMrGS Bal Mr Harinder C Sharma MrK Arora MrAnil ChopraMrunny Singlaand Z MrDeepakGuptaAdvocates for thepetitioners er C Mruneet GuptaAddl Advocate General Punjabwith 41 MsCharu Tuli Senior DAG Punjabfor the Vm Z PERMOD KOHLI J rl Controversy in all thesewrit petitions1S common based upon identicalfactsand same questionoflaw The petitioners are claimingbenefit of the revised pay scales eP with effect from 19061971 the date when the similarly situated government were held entitled to the revised pay scales OIl completionof tlve years of service These petitionerswere denied benefit Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.03 11: 06 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 62 K Z 944Iee 4 10o l 4 e 1 CWP N014394 of2010 31 V e thoughlater all of them were grantedthe benefit with effect from 16071975 This controversyearlier came up before this Court in CWP No2208 of 1989 Lekh Raj Khera and others Vse State of Punjab and anotherl This writ petitionwas allowed vide judgmentdated 24032009 with the directionsw In view of the abovelegaland factualposition 1 this petitionsucceedspartially are directedto extendthebenefitofthe Payrevision in 0 CO case of petitioners wef 1111971 instead of I 0 167975 Theyare 61rtherdirectedto fix the pay scale of the such of the petitionerswhose Z unrevisedpay falls betweentwo stagesin the new 0 time scale in the revised scale 111the next stage I The processofflxationofpaybecompleted within r a periodof four months from the date certified Z copy of this order is served upon the competent m authorityThe benefltbe releasedin 17 Z favourof the petitioners within a periodof two ll months thereafter 24032009 PERMOD KOHLII JUDGE 1 It is common case of the partiesthat all the petitioners are 1 governedby the directions contained ln Lekh Raj Kheras case supra noticed hereinabove However leamed counsel appearingfor the State has reservationin regardto grantof relief to these writ petitionersparticularlythose who approachedthe Court aRer a long IUr 1 Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.03 11: 06 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 63 Ir4kmb 4 41 1 1 21 P r CWP Nol4394 of2010 040 delayfor seekingthe relief As a matter of fact all the petitioners are seeking of thejudgmentof Lekh Raj Kheras case for their respective benefltSeIn view ofthe objection raisedbythe on thequestionof delaythesewrit petitions were heardthough all the writ petitions are covered Ioythe rendered in Lekh Raj Kherascase j The Statehas relied uponvarious which are noticed hereunder 0 40 I In the case of RegionalManagerAePe SRTC Vse Ne 9 and others 2008 1 Supreme Court Cases 210 Honble I the Supreme Court declinedthe prayer for regularisation of dailywagers Z frorn the date of their initial engagementin the year 1986 in the writ 0 petitionfiled in the year 1999 on the groundof delayand lachesthough I C0 Z In the case of Nadia Distte PrimarySchool Council and 100 another Vse Sristidhar Biswas and others 2007912 Court l7 Cases 779 Z of whenthewrit petitionwasflled alter a periodof nine years ae The relevant observationsare contained in paragraph11 of the judgment which are asunderl 11In the presentcase the panelwas prepared lll ee 1980 and the petitionersapproachedthe court 111 1989 after the decision ln Dibakar Pal Such 4 persons should not be givenany benet by the court when theyallowed more than nine years to 4AM0e96441V444 10 146 Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.03 11: 06 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 64 wealevd e 10Aoa n V4 Z 4Tn r eAW CWP Nol4394 of2010 5 elapse Delay is very signiflcantin matters of grantingrelief and court cannot come to the rescue of the persons are not vigilantof their rights Therefore the Vlew taken by the High Court condoningthe delayof nine years cannot be countenanced m In Eastern CoalfieldsLimed Vs DugalKumar 14 Supreme Court Cases 295 a writ petition was filed aftera decadeclaiming 0 0 the benefit of additionalquantity of coal allottedto the company 10 years I ClO beforethe date of filingof the writ petitionIt has been held that inordinate delayon the part of the petitionerin makingthe motion for a writ is an Z groundfor refusing to exercise discretion under Article 226 of theConstitutionofIndia I In the case of SS Balu and another vse State of Kerala and C1 Z others20099 2 Supreme Court Cases 479 Honble the Supreme Court made followingobservationsto denythe relief when there is inordinate al delayl 17 Z C4 17 It is also wellsettled principleof law that ll deIaydefeats equity The Governmentorder was issued on 15e2002 The appellantsdid not Sle 1 any writ application the legalityand e validitythereof OnlyaRer the writ petitionsfiled by others were allowed and the State of Kerala preferredan appeal theyimpleaded thernselves as It is now a trite 0e 1ee161 ml e VI I e Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.03 11: 06 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 65 4 0 1 4 ea t vbOver4P4911W1 O ro I t 1 CWP No14394 of2010 61 ee law that where the writ petitionerapproaches the High Court afler a longdelayreliefs prayedfor rnaybe denied to them on thegroundof delayand laches of the fact theyare similarly situated to the other candidateswho obtain the benefit It is thus not possiblefor 1 US to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or 0 the Commission to appointthe at this 0 C stage In NDMC v Pan Singhthis Court heldl I C5 SCC p283para1617 I In the case of Shiv Dass Vse Union of India 8nd others Z 200799 Supreme Court cases 274 the writ petitionerwas denied the disabilitypensionin the year 1983 He filed a writ petition the High r ln I Court in the year 2005 This writ petitionwas dismissedbytheHiglourt the questionof delayand laches The Honble Supreme Court Z while the matter to the High Court made the following aO observationsle 7 Z 90 In the case of pensionthe cause of action Qm actuallycontinues from month to month That however cannot be a groundto overlook delaylll 1 filingthe petition It would dependupon the fact Vme of each case If petition1S filed beyond a reasonable period say three years normallythe Court would rejectthe same or restrict the relief which could be grantedto a reasonable periodof dle m0a 4 Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.03 11: 06 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 66 Ies 4 J 11 0 eaSn90I Vl d CWP Nol4394 of2010 671 aboutthreeyears The HighCourt did not examine whether on merit the appellanthad a case If on rneritsit would have found that therewas no scope for interferenceit would have dismissed the wnt petitionon that score alone 53 Learned counsel appeanngfor the have also 1 referredto various of this Court and also the govemment 0 HighCourt 0 0 The StateofPunjab issuedinstructionsdated17072002 to all the Financial 9 thePrincipal Secretariesand the AdministrativeSecretaries I to theGovemmentofPunjabThe instructions are as under C Z i9 Whereverthe rightsof the partieshave been 2 r settledby a judgment of the Court the Statehas I takenall remediesavailableto it in law againstthat judgment even uptothe highestcourt of the land Z and the judgment has attained flnalitythen the m Statemust acceptthejudgment and implement it in rn Z its true spiritand command There 1S implicit Qa obligation on the part of the State to grant same relief to other membersof the cadre whose claim was basedupn identical facts andpointof law 0e ciio The as expeditiously as possiblein any case not later than four months react and respondto a legal senred upon it by any of its employees in redressal awm44A0nVeweA Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.03 11: 06 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 67 1 1 1nl 1 0111 4 4r U 4 1r CWP Nol4394 of2010 68 8 of his of relief which has been grantedto his similarlysituated lll furtheranceto thejudgment of the Court Unless for reasons to be indicated in the reply the State feelscompelled to denysuch relief Needlessto pointout that denialmust neitherbe evasive nor 1 intendedto circumventthe ordersofthe Court 1Z iiil In the eventsuch an employee ls compelled 0 Ca0 to approachthe court of law the court 0 awardsinterestandlorcosts while allowing such a I petitionthentheexpenditure incurredbythe State Z includingthe costslinterestpaid irtherance to lll 2 0 the ordersofthe Court should be recovered from I theerring r iv The concernedquartersofthe Govemment are Z expected to work out the detailsin Alrtherance to C0 the above directions and issue pervasivebut 7 Z definite instructionsto all its depents forthwith Om to ensure compIiance In the case of State of RarnatakaSc Orse Vse Ce Lalitha eWV 2 SCC 747 Honble the Supreme Court while considering the right ofsimilarlysituatedpersons observedas underl 18 Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulatesthat all persons Y43 VAeWW44mw114e 1 Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.03 11: 06 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 68 14 e W9401614 04A 1e CWP N014394 of2010 9 t similarlysituatedshould40etreatedsimilarlyOnly becauseone person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarlysituated should be treated 33 I haveheardtheleamedcounsel for thepartiesat length The petitioners are similarly situatedas the writ petitioners in 1 Lekh Raj Kheras case supral However it is a fact that these writ petitionershave this Court alter the judgmentof Lekh Raj 0 0 Kherascase for the similarrelief The Statewhile thattheyare I C5 similarlysituated resistedtheir claim onlyOll the groundof delayin filing I the writ petitionSeThe judgment in Lekh Raj Kheras case has attained Z finalityand the State has implemented the same vide its circular dated 2 18082010issuedbythe District EducationOfflcer 6SE9Gurdaspur to aIl I the Masters etc The relevant instructionsfor its t are as underl Z As per letter under reference directions were OO issued to draw the arrears of the concemed with Iw2 Z regardto grantofpayscale from 1111971 instead 41 of 1671975 in tenns of the reportof the Kothari Cossion within a periodof 15 daysNow Civil Writ Petition No806212010has also been disposed 4 of by the Court in terms of the decision in Lekh Raj Cheras case Therefore if any petitionerof this writ petitionis pertaining to your schoo the due bene8t be given to him within 10 days and Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.03 11: 06 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 69 4e4P4VWn4 e o eo 014 er e o ws ee ev4 r 6 Ip 11 CWP No14394 of2010 109 receiptbe sent to this 01TiceWhile releasing paymentto the petitionerthe Head of the School will ensure that the benefit has been correctly givento the petitioneras per instructionslrulesIf due to the of the school Head any petitionerremaineddeprivedfor payment the 1 concemed School Head will be responsible 0 for the sarn 0 C From the abovecircular it is establishedthat the State has I C40 implemented thejudgment qua writ petitionersin Lekh Raj Kheras case Instructionsdated1772002 referredto abovecIearlydepictsGovernments Z policyto implement the attainingfinalitynot only quathe writ petitioners but also in respectto all non as well who are I similarly situatedand may beentitledto similarrelief These instructions CO are generalin nature and apply111 all such cases whereverthe judgment Z 41 againstthe State has attained finality Despitethese instructionshaving QO been issuedin the year 2002 the Stateis actingin 7 thereofand Z similarly situated personsare le with no otheroptionbut to approachthis Qm Court time and again This has the effect of this Court with unnecessarylitigationand chocking the justicedeliverysystemIt may also be noticed that not onlythe Govemmentitselfhas decidedto implementthe C judgmentin respect to all similarlysituatedpersons a Division Bench of this Court also issued generaldirectionsin this regardin the case of Satbir SinghVse State of Haryana2002 029Service Cases Today 354 The relevant directionsare contained in paragraph19 of this judgmentwhich 404W110446m v Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.03 11: 06 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 70 1 04 r0 We1 P eea CWP Nol4394 of2010 611 r are as under 19 Be that as it may particularlyin the aforee referred premiseswe still feel that it is the boundendutyof the Court to 1SSue the following directionsto the Statein the largerpublicmterest andfor proper administrationofjustice 1 6o Whereverthe rightsof the larties havebeen C2 0 settled by a judgment of the Court the State has CO takerl211remediesavailableto it in law againstthat C5 judgment even uptothe highestcourt of the land I and the judgmenthas attained finality then the Z Statemust acceptthejudgment and implement it in 0 its true spirit and command There is implicit Cr I obligation on e part of the State to grant same r Z relief to other membersof the cadre whose claim was basedupon identicalfacts andpointoflaw 10 4r 6i0 The StateGovernmentshall m as Z as possiblein any case not laterthanfour months C react and respondto a legal servedupon it by any of its employees in redressal of his of relief which has been 6 grantedto his similarlysituated lll 61rtherance to thejudgmentof the Court Unless for reasons to be indicated in the reply the State feels compelledto denysuch relief Needless to Va0911 141M4 Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.03 11: 06 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 71 e9 Il 4oel P m Io 1 4 0 4Sll r eP CWP No14394 of2010 129 point out that denial must neither be evasive nor intended to circunt the ordersofthe Court iiil In the event such an is compelled to approachthe court of law the court awardsinterestandlor costs while allowing such a petitionthenthe incurredbytheState a including the costslinterestpaid111furtheranceto the ordersofthe Court should be recovered from 0 0 theerringofficer I 0 iv The concemed Govemmentare I expectedto work out the details in 61rtherance to Z the above directions and issue pervasivebut definiteinstructionsto all its deptmentsforthwith r I to ensure It is a matter of concernthat theabovedirectionsissuedbythis Z Court as far back as in theyear 2002are beingtloutedwith impunityThe 0 State has failed to discharge its obligationto grant relief to similarly me Z situatedpersons at its OWn level der such circumstancesit cannot be C pennittedto pleaddelayand lacheswhere the Stateitself is responsible for unnecessary litigationwhich could be conveniently tackled at administrative level on account of concluded and bindingjudgments of this Coun and the C Honble Supreme Court 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 2009 and 2010 which have been decided by this Court grantingthe eM9 Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.03 11: 06 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 72 wnWe 1e nemh0r4 4eAPeelP 4elIl f 0aee CWP Nol4394 of2010 139 r similar relief as lll Lekh Raj Kheras case and the Statehas chosen not to preferany appealagainstthose The questionof reefixation of the salary 111 fact givesa recurring cause of action to the govemmentemployeeas every month he looses some amount from his salaryor retiralbenefitson account of wrong fixation of salary Thus the doctrineof delayand laches cannot be a permitted to be invoked as th rule in every case The cited on behalfoftheStatemostlypertained to appointment matters seniority and 0 0 policymatters In Ce Lalithas case supra Honble the Supreme Court C5 has clearlyheld that similarlysituatedpersons should not be treated I SimilarlylIl Shiv Dasss case supra9cited on behalf of the Z Honble the Supreme Court has againclearlyheld that 111 casesofpensionat themost reliefcouldbe restrictedto threeyears I A Full Bench of this Court in the case of SarojKumari and r Z others vs The state of Punjaband others 1998 59 Services Law Reporter266 have examinedthe questionof reefixation in the context of m delayin the Court whereinit hasbeen held as under m Z 9 Learnedcounselfor the submitted t1 that in case of wrong flxation of pay to which an employeemay be entitledunder the relevantrules instructions or even on account of a judgment 4eeee thereis noequestionof any limitation as the wrong paymentof salaryevery month is a continuing wrong againsthim which givesnse to recurring cause of action each time he is paidsalarywhich is I4I Ie10 Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.03 11: 06 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 73 r1v4 Wa 4m4rAlWAna I5 A4e604LtrWP4 1 1 d70 ov I 41 AS CWPN043940f2010 141 not computedaccordingto the relevant rules instructions or a judgmenttheemployees in such a case has a rightto ask for a direction to the State Goveent or to the employer to flx the pay correctlyrightfromdayone in accordancewith the relevantrules and instructions However while m granting the relief of arrears of pay etc the same C can be confined to threeyears and two months 0 C which is the period of limitation providedfor C5 getting a relief of realisationof arrears in a civil suit Z 14 For the reasons we are of the view 2 that in cases whereonly fixation ofpayaccording I to the relevant ruleslinstructions or a judgment 1S r prayedfor the writ petitioncannot bedismissedat Z the thresholdon thegroundof delayand lachesbut CO the paymentof arrears can be restricted to v Z reasonableperiod Three yearsand two months Qm would be considered a reasonableperiodas that is the periodfor which a person can ask for the paymentofarrearsbefore a Civil Court C The cause of thepetitioners is a recurring cause Thus the ratio of thejudgmentof th Full Bench is applicableon all four corners to the factsof this case Petitionersrightcannot be defeatedmerelyon account of delayand laches thoughthe relief for arrears can be restrictedto a period Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.03 11: 06 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 74 1 41mMSe0aree4m4e12mlrt6 4 1 1 CWPNo14394of2010 159 C ofthreeyearsas observedby Honble the Supreme Court and Full Bench of thisCourt referredto hereinabove In view of the above circumstancesthesepetitions are allowed 111tennsof the judgmentin Lekh Raj Kheras case However the claim for arrearS lS restrictedto threeyearspreceding the filing of the writ petitions No costs 1 It is further directed that all similarlysituated govemment Q may be the relief in terms of Lekh Raj Kheras case 0 C0 restricting claim of arrears to threeyears It would be prudentand I for the Govemment to issue a circularlnotificationin this t5 I as earlyas possible to preventfurtherlitigation on this question Z A copy of this orderbe placed on the flle of otherconnected writ petitions C e I Co 11052011 PERMOD KOHLII Z BLS JUDGE 1 CO Le I7 Notel Whetherto be referredto theReporter2 YES Z CL 47 c 4 tr 1 t e Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.03 11: 06 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document