C.W.P No. 120 of 2006 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 120 of 2006 Date of decision : March 04, 2009 Harish Kumar Rohila and others, ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. R.N.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J The petitioners challenge the order of the respondents in restricting the arrears of pay from the date of decision of the writ petition bearing CWP No.4550 of 1980 (Annexure P-1), filed by some of the petitioners and others. The said writ petition was allowed by judgment dated 27.3.1991 in the following terms :- “ For the reasons recorded above, this writ petition is allowed. The order Annexure P/7 is quashed and the respondents are directed to re-determine the seniority of C.W.P No. 120 of 2006 ::2:: the petitioners vis.a.vis other teachers in Govt. School after giving them the benefit of past service rendered by them with the Cantonment Board.” Letters Patent Appeal against the aforesaid order was dismissed by judgment dated 5.9.2001. S.L.P bearing Special Leave to Appeal No.2319 of 2002 filed by the respondents against the order dated 5.9.2001 was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consequently, the petitioners were granted the benefit of seniority and notional pay fixation but were not granted any other relief on the ground that they had all retired prior to a period of 38 months preceding the date of the judgment and, thus, they were neither entitled to any arrears of pay (on the principle of no work no pay) nor were they entitled to the benefit of that notional pay fixation for the purpose of their retiral dues. The net result is that as per the respondents, the petitioners are not entitled to any actual relief except the empty satisfaction that they are deemed to have retired in promotional posts. This conclusion drawn by the respondents is indeed mystifying. While allowing the writ petition this Court had not passed any restrictive order. It is not disputed that at the time when CWP No.4550 of 1980 was filed there was no delay on the part of the petitioners and others since the impugned order therein (denying them the benefit of their previous service) was passed only on 27.5.1980. Thus, any declaration issued in favour of the petitioners would necessarily have to relate back to the date of the filing of the writ petition and could by no stretch of reasoning be extended to the date of the decision of the writ petition in view of the fact that no such order was passed by this Court. In view of the promptitude with which the earlier order of 1980 had been challenged there could be no question of C.W.P No. 120 of 2006 ::3:: invoking the principle of 38 months which is normally invoked to restrict benefits in stale but recurring claims. The only limitation could have been to not release the increased pay etc. for that period during which the petitioners did not actually work on the promoted posts. However, the petitioners could not be denied the benefits of the fixation of increased pay for computing their retiral benefits in any case. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant actual benefit of the increased/promotional pay scale to the petitioners for the purpose of computing their superannuation benefits within a period of three months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order, during which time the arrears as well as the increased pension be released to the petitioners. It is further clarified that the petitioners would be entitled to interest @ 8% p.a on the arrears from the date of their entitlement to the date of actual disbursal. No costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 04, 2009. JUDGE `kk'