41 4 44 1 1 4 A4 r l 44 1 CWP Nol4394 of2010 19 In theHighCourt ofPunjabandHaryanaat Dateofdecisionl1105011 11 CWP No 14394 of2010 MajorSinghKhatkar and othersVs StateofPunjaband others 21CWP NoA188of2011 r SinghDhillon and others Vs StateofPunjaband others r 0 A31 CWP N0127480f2010 CO I SahahGuptaandothersVs StateofPunjaband others C5 41 CWP Nol9490 of2010 emS SmtSantoshGuptaand others Vs StateofPunjaband another Z 51CWPNo17961 of2010 Ct ChamanLal Sethiand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 4t I k61CWP No 18486of2010 Z ArnarNath Bhutani and othersVs StateofPunjaband others r10 71 CWP No 18846 of2010 2 ChanderKanta andothers Vs StateofPunjaband another Z A81 CWP Nol9964 of2010 Qm Kidar Nath Sharmaand others Vs StateofPunjab8nd another 691CWP Nol9969 of2010 t Ajit Singhand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 101 CWP No 2457 of2011 Sat Pal Vs The StateofPunjaband others 6111CWP NoA647 of2011 1 Ajit Singhand others Vs StateofPunjaband another WenWdnu Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.02 16: 29 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 42 1 5 1 r CWP No4394 of2010 21 r 6121CWP No 4166 of2011 GurcharanSinghBedi Vs StateofPunjaband others K131CWP NoA123 of2011 1 GurcharanSinghand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 141 CWP No 2975 of2011 l2amesh Kumari Vs StateofPunjab andanother 1 151 CWP N02886 of2011 r MangalSinghand others Vs Stateof Punjaband another 0 C 61CWP No 4305 of2011 t5 SinghVs StateofPunjab andothers I Z CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI 2 r Presentl Mr RK Arora MrYM Bhagirath MrSameer Sachdeva Ms Alka Chatrath MrNikas Chatrath MrAmrik SinghMr KPS I SandhuMrFribhawan SinglaMrGS Bal Mr Harinder r SharmaMrK Arora MrAnil ChopraMrunny Singlaand Z MrDeepakGuptaAdvocates for thepetitioners OO MrPuneet GuptaAddl Advocate General Punjabwith MsCharu Tuli SeniorDAG Punjabfor the Sm Z PERMOD KOHLI J a Controversy in all these writ petitionslS common based upon identicalfactsand same questionof law The petitionersare claimingbenefit of the revised pay scales 2 6 with effect from 1906197 1 the date when the similarly situated govemmentemployees were held entitled to the revised pay scales on completionof 8ve years of service Thesepetitioners were denied benefit 4mle Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.02 16: 29 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 43 1 CWP Nol4394 of2010 39 thoughlater all of them were grantedthe benefit with effect from 16071975 This controversyearlier came up before this Coult in CWP No2208 of 1989 Lekh Raj Khera and others Vse State of Punjab and anotherl This writ petitionwas allowed vide judgmentdated 24032009 withthefollowing directionsl In view of the abovelegaland factualposition this petitionsucceedspartially are r directedto extendthe benefit ofthe Payrevision in 0 C0 case of petitionerswef 111 1971 instead of C49 1671975 Theyare lrther directedto fix the pay scale of the such of the petitionerswhose Z unrevisedpay falls between two stagesin the new time scale in the revised scale in the next stage 0 The processofflxation ofpaybecompleted within I a periodof four months from the date certified Z copy of this order is served upon the competent oo authorityThe benefit be releasedin 7 Z favour of the petitionerswithin a periodof two Qm rnonthsthereafter 24032009 PERMOD KOHLO JUDG 1 It is common case of the partiesthat all the petitioners are enem govemedby the directions contained 111 Lekh Raj Kheras case Csupra noticed hereinabove However leamed counsel appearingfor the Statee has reservationin regardto grantof relief to these writ petitionersparcularly those who approachedthe Court afler a long e O w 161S0 Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.02 16: 29 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 44 e e1411 01r eId 0 CWP No14394 of2010 4J e delayfor seekingthe relief As a matter of fact all the petitioners are of thejudgmentof Lekh Raj Kheras case for their benefits In view ofthe objectionraisedby the 1 onthequestionof delaythesewrit petitions were heardthoughprincipally all the writ petitions are coveredby the judgment renderedin Lekh Raj Kheras case 1 The Statehas reliedupon various which are noticed rL hereunder 0 0 In the case of RegionalManager AePe SRTC Vse N I 0 and others 2008 1 Supreme Court Cases 210 Honble the SupremeCourt declined the prayer for of dailywagers Z t from the date of their initial engagementin the year 1986 in the writ 7 C flled in the year 1999 on the groundof delayand laches though I theywere entitledto such reliefunder an ofthe Court r Z In the case of Nadia Distte PrimarySchool CouncU and another Vse Sristidhar Biswas and others 2007912 Supreme Court QO 7 Cases779 theCourt declined thereliefon thegroundofdelayin the matter Z of when the writ petition was flled aRer a periodof nineyears Oa The relevant observationsare contained in paragraph11 of the judgment afoiesaidwhich are asunderl 11 In the presentcase the panelwas prepared 111 9ae 1980 and the petiUonersapproachedthe COUrt 111 1989 at2er the decision in Dibakar Pal Such personsshould notbe given any bene8t by the court when theyallowed more than nine years to 06 001 1 9 Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.02 16: 29 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 45 e ve Ceeraw eLervavv m e CWP Nol4394 of 2010 53 elapse Delay is very significantin matters of gran8ng relief and court cannot come to the rescue of the personswho are not vigilantof their rights Therefore the Vlew taken by the High Court the delayof nine years cannot be countenanced m In Eastern Coalfields Limited VseDugalKumar 2008914 Supreme Court Cases 295 arit petition was filed aRer a decadeclaiming 0 0 the benefit of additionalquantity of coal allottedto thecompany 10years I C5 beforethe dateof filingof the writ petitionIt has been held that inordinate I delayon the part of the petitioner in makingthe motion for a writ is an Z groundfor reflisingto exercise discretion under Article 226 of 2 0 theConstitutionofIndia I In the case of SS Balu and another vse State of Kerala and t others 2009 2 Supreme Court Cases 479 Honble the Supreme Court Z made followingobservationsto denythe relief when there is inordinate 00 delayl e Z C4 17 It is also wellsettled principleof law that tl delaydefeats equity The Governmentorderwas issued on 152002e The appellantsdid not file anywrit applicationquestioningthe legalityand eeaee validitythereof Onlyafter the writ petitionsfiled by others were allowed and the State of Kerala preferred an appeal they impleaded themselves as It is now a trite m 4e 00 1 401 Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.02 16: 29 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 46 Vl 4 4 ae 10144Ape046 9 1 CWP N0714394 of2010 6 e law that where the writ petitionerapproaches the HighCourt afler a longdelay reliefs prayedfor maybe denied to them on thegroundof delayand 1 laches of the fact theyare similarly situatedto the other candidates who obtain the benefitofthejudgmentIt is thus not possible for j US to issue any direction to the Stateof Keralaor 0 the Commission to appointthe at this 0 0 stageIn NDMC v Pan Singhthis Court heldl I C5 6SCCp283para1692 I In the case of Shiv Dass Vse Union of India nd others Z 200709 SupremeCourt cases 274 the writ petitionerwas denied the disability pensionin the year 1983 He filed a writ petitionin the High Q Ct Court in the year 2005 This writ petitionwas dismissedbytheHighCoun C considering the questionof delayand laches The Honble Supreme Coun Z while the matter to the High Court made the following oo observati0ns1 7 Z 10 In the case of pensionthe causeof action tl actuallycontinues 8om month to month That 1 however cannot be a groundto overlook delay111 1 filing the petition It would dependuponthe fact e of each case If petition 1S flled beyonda reasonable periodsay three years normallythe Court would rejectthe same or restrict the relief which could be grantedto a reasonableperiodof V4ePem 1 Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.02 16: 29 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 47 0 1941 e 041 0100419r eIl e CWP No4394 of2010 679 aboutthreeyears The HighCourt did not examine whether on merit the appellanthad a case If on meritsit would have found that therewas no scope for interference it would have dismissed the writ petition on that score alone 33 Learned counl appearing for the have also j refened to various judgmentof this Court and also the govemment C2 instructions in regardto ofthe HighCourt 0 0 The StateofPunjabissued instructionsdated172002 to all the Financial I 0 Cossioners the PrincipalSecretariesandthe Administrative Secretaries I to the GovernmentofPunjabThe instructionsare as under Z il Wherever the rightsof the partieshave been settledby a judgment of the Court the Statehas r Cr takenall remediesavailableto it in law againstthat C judgment even uptothe highestcourt of the land Z and the judgmenthas attained finalitythen the CQ Statemust acceptthejudgmentand implement it in 3 Z its true spiritand command There is implicit Om obligation on the part of the State to grant same 1 relief to other membersof the cadre whose claim was basedup6nidentical facts andpointof law io The State G7ernment shall as expeditiously nw as possiblein any case not later than four months react and respondto a legai servedupon it by any of its employees in redressal Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.02 16: 29 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 48 0 d CWP Nol4394 of2010 81 e of his of relief which has been to his coemployeesimilarlysituated in 81rtherance to thejudgment of the Court Unless for reasons to be indicated in the reply the State feelscompelled to denysuch relief Needless to pointout that denialmust neitherbe evasivenor m intendedto circumvent the ordersof the Court iio In the event such an employee is compelled 0 Ca3 to approach the COUlt of law the court I awardsinterestandlor costs while allowingsuch a C5 petitionthentheexpenditure incurred bythe State t Z including the costslinterestpaidin lrtheranceto 5t the ordersofthe Court should be recoveredfrom L theerringofficer I C ivl The concemedquartersofthe Govemment are Z expected to work out the details in furtheranceto 0 the above directions and issue pervasivebut mmo Z definiteinstnlctionsto all its forthwith Clm to ensure compliance In the case of State of Rarnataka 8 Orse Vse C Lalitha 4 620069 2 SCC 747 Honble theSupreme Coutt while theright ofsimilarlysituatedpetsons observedas under 18 Service evolved by this Court from time to time postulatesthat all persons 7 e l eAeaPllWmd4 Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.02 16: 29 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 49 nWOIVI I W9 CWP Nol4394 of 2010 99 C similarly situatedshouldbe treatedsimilarly Only becauseone person has the court that would not mean that persons similarlysituated should be treated 13 I haveheardthe leamed counselfor thepartiesat length The petitioners are similarly situatedas the writ pe8tioners lll Lekh Raj Kheras case supral However it is a fact that these writ have this Court aRer the judgmentof Lekh Raj 0 C Kherascase for the similarrelief The Statewhile thattheyare r C9 similarly situated resistedtheir claim onlyon the groundof delayin Oling I thewrit petitionsThe in Lekh Raj Kheras case has attained Z flnalityand the State has implemented the same vide its circular dated 32 18082010issuedby the District Education Offlcer SEOGurdaspurto all the PrincipalslHeadMasters et The relevant instructions for its I Cl are as underl Z As per letter under reference directions were r issued to draw the arrears of the concerned with V7 Z regard to grantofpayscale from l1971 instead Qa of 1671975 in terms of the reportof the Kothari Commission within a periodof 15 daysNow Civil Writ Petition No06212010 has also been disposed 1a of by the Court in terms of the decision in Lekh Raj Kheras casee Therefore if any petitioner of this writ petitionis pertainingto your school the due beneOt be givento him within 10 days and 4P e1 Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.02 16: 29 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SO e 16144 0v nwe e e 1 P mm CWPNo4394 of2010 10 receiptbe sent to this office While releasing pnt to the petitionerthe Head of the School will ensure that the beneflt has been correctly given to the petitioner as per instructionslrules If due to the of the school Head any remaineddeprivedfor paymentthe 1 concemedSchoolHeadwill be for the Q same 0 C From the above circular it is established that the State has I 0 thejudgmentqua writ petitionersin Lekh Raj Kheras case I Instruc8onsdated17772002referredto aboveclearlydepictsGovernments Z policy to implement thejudgmentsattainingfinalitynot only qua the writ but also in respectto all non as well who are r41 Z similarly situatedand may be entitledto similar relief These instructions r are general in nature and applyin all such cases wherever the judgment Z against the State has attained finality Despitethese instructionshaving OO 1 beenissued in the year 2002 the State is actingin derogationthereofand mvo Z similarly situatedpersonsare lelt with no other optionbut to approach this a Courttime and again This has the effect of burdeningthis Coun with unnecessaiy litigationand chockingthejusticedeliverysystemIt may also be noticed that not onlythe Govemment itselfhas decided to implement the lce judgmentin respectto all similarlysituatedpersons a Division Bench of this Court also issued generaIdirections in this regardin the case of Satbir SinghVse State of Haryana 2002 029Service Cases Today 354 The relevant directions are contained in paragraph19 of this judgmentwhich smemoe Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.02 16: 29 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 51 P 0P CWPNol4394 of2010 119 r areas under 4190Be that as it may particularly in the afore referred premiseswe still feel that it is the bounden dutyof the Court to issue the following directionsto the Statein the largerpub1ic interest andfor properadministrationofjusticele 1 o Wherever the rightsof the partieshave been 0 settledbya judgment of the Court the Statehas 0 C0 takenall remediesavailableto it in law against that I C5 judgment even uptothe highestcourt of the land I and the judgmenthas attained finality then the Z Statemust acceptthejudgmentandimplement it in its true spiritand command There is implicit C2 et I on the part of the Stateto grant same C relief to other membersof the cadre whose claim Z wasbasedupon identicalfacts andpointoflaw rJ ii9 The StateGovernmentshall as 7 Z as possible in any casenot laterthanfour months 0 react and respond to a legal servedupon it by any of its employees in redressal of his of relief which has been 4 grantedto his comemployees similarlysituated in furtheranceto the judgmentof the Court Unless for reasons to be indicated in the reply the State feels compelledto denysuch relief Needless to 61 Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.02 16: 29 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 52 1 5 a 0 4 1446 V3 CWPNo14394 of2010 129 point out that denial must neither be evasive nor to circumvent the ordersofthe Court iii9 In the event such an employee is compelled to the court of law whereuponthe court awards interestandlorcosts while allowingsucha thenthe incurredbythe State the costslinterestpaidin rtheranceto e OL1 theorders ofthe Court shouldbe recoveredfrom 0 0 theerringofficer I iv The concernedquartersofthe Govemmentare C5 to work out the ctails in furtheranceto Z the above directions and issue pervasivebut definiteinstructionsto all its depents forthwith rA to ensure compliance Cl It is a rnatter of concem that the above directionsissuedby this Z Court as far back as in theyear 2002 are beingflouted with impunityThe ril State has failed to its obligationto grant relief to simiiarly e Z situated persons at its own level Under such circumstances it cannot be ll to pleaddelayand lacheswhere the Stateitself is for litigationwhich could be conveniently tackled at adminisuative level on account of concluded andbhidirjudgments of this Coun and the Ce 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 year2009 and 2010 which have been decided by this Court grantingthe Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.02 16: 29 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 53 aemv 44 edmneol 4 4hV V I P ee CWPNol4394 of 2010 131 r similarrelief as in Lekh Raj Kheras case and the Statehas chosen not to preferany appealagainstthosejudgments The questionof remfixationof the salary in fact givesa recurring cause of action to the goveent employee as eveiy month he loosessome amount from his salaryor retiralbeneSts on account of wrong fixation of salary Thus the doctrine of delayand laches cannot be 1 pennitted to be invoked as thumbrule in every case The cited r on behalfofthe Statemostlypertained to appointment matters seniorityand 0 Co policyrnatters In Ce Lalithas case supralHonble the Supreme Court I 9 has clearlyheld that similarlysituatedpersons should not be treated I differentlySimilarly111 Shiv Dasss case supra cited on behalf of the Z Honble the SupremeCourt has againclearlyheld that ln 2 casesofpensionat themost reliefcould be restrictedto threeyears I A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Saroj Kumari and r others vse The state of Punjaband others 1998 Services Law Z Reporter266 have examinedthe questionof reefixation in the context of rll delayin theCourt wherein it hasbeenheld as underl 7 Z 9 Leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted Clm that in case of wrongfixation of pay to which an employee may be entitled under the relevantrules instructions or even on account of a judgment 4nea there is no questionof any limitation as the wrong paymentof salaryevery month lS a continuing wrongagainsthim which givesnse to recurring cause ofaction eachtime he is paidsalarywhich is Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.02 16: 29 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 54 r n0 ae 1e6ete4nm404n0eao9sceen ee CWP Nol43940f2010 149 not computedaccordingto the relevant rules instructionsor ajudgmenttheemployees in such a case has a rightto ask for a direction to the State1 Governt or to the employer to fix the pay correctlyrightfrom dayone in accordancewith the relevantrules and instnlctions However while j the relief of arrears of pay etc the same Q can be confined to three years and two months 0 0 which is the periodof limitation provided for C getting a relief of realisation of anears in a civil I suit 14 Z 14 Forthe foregoing reasons we are of the view thatin cases where onlyfixation of pay according I to the relevant ruleslinstructionsor a judgment1S L0 prayedfor thewrit petitioncannot be dismissedat Z the thresholdon thegroundofdelayand lachesbut Q0 the paymentof arrears can be restricted to a W2 Z reasonableperiod Three years and two months r would be considereda reasonableperiodas that is the periodfor which a person can ask for the paymentofauears before a Civil Court Y4ee The cause of thepetitioners is a recuningcause Thus the ratio of thejudgmentof the Full Bench is applicableon all four corners to the factsof this case Petitionersrightcannot be defeatedmerelyon account of delayand 1s ghthe relief for arrears can be restrictedto a period Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.02 16: 29 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 55 1 414 W r rn 1 eelw w 4 0n CWP Noe14394 of2010 15 t ofthree years as observedby Honble theSupreme Court and Full Bench of thisCourt referredto hereinabove In view of the above circumstancesthesepetitionsare allowed 111terms of the judgmentin Lekh Raj Kheras case However theclaim for arrearS lS restrictedto threeyearspreceding the filingof the writ petitions No costSe 1 It is further directed that all similarlysituated govemment employees may be grantedthe relief in terms of Lekh Raj Kheras case 0 Cao thoughrestrictingclaim of arrears to three years It would be prudentand I C9 for the Govemment to issue a circularlnotification in this I regard as earlyas possible to prevent81rtherlitigation on this question Z A copy of this orderbe placed on thefile of otherconnected writ petitions I C OO 4 C 11052011 PERMOD KOHLI Z BLS JUDGE rlo C Le 7 Notel Whether to be referredto theReporter2 YES Z Qm 6 1 t f Singh Gagan Preet 2014.07.02 16: 29 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document