7 38 1 O p e s1 CWP Nol4394 of2010 19 In theHighCourt ofPunjabandHaryanat Chandigarh Dateofdecisionl 11052011 10 CWP No 14394 of2010 IvlajorSinghKhatkar andothersVs StateofPunjabandothers 21CWP N0A1880f2011 f 1 SinghDhillon and others Vs StateofPunjaband others r 0 31CWP No 12748 of2010 0 I Sodagar SahahGuptaand othersVs StateofPunjaband others C5 A41 CWP Nol9490 of2010 w SmtSantoshGuptaandothers Vs StateofPunjaband another Z 51CWPNo7961 of2010 r ChamanLal Sethiandothers Vs StateofPunjaband another 61 CWP No 18486of2010 Z Amar NatBhutani andothersVs Stateof Punjaband others C0 A71CWP Nol8846 of2010 7 ChanderKanta and others Vs StateofPunjaband another Z f80 CWP Nol9964 of2010 Kidar Nath Sharmaand others Vs StateofPunjab and another 191CWP Nol9969 of2010 Ajit Singhand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 101 CWP No 2457 of2011 C Sat Pal Vs The StateofPunjaband others 6111CWP NoA647 of2011 r Ajit Singhandothers Vs StateofPunjaband another Iae Rawat Seema 2014.07.03 13: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 39 1 n1011n nr e e CWP Nol4394 of2010 029 r 4121CWP NoA166 of2011 GurcharanSinghBedi Vs StateofPunjaband others K131CWP N04123of2011 GurcharanSinghand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 141 CWP No2975 of2011 RameshKumariVs StateofPunjab and anotr 1 151 CWP No886 of2011 r MangalSinghand others Vs Stateof Punjaband another 0 0 161 CWP NoA305 of2011 I C5 SinghVs StateofPunjaband others I Z CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI 2 r er Present Mr RK Arora MrYM Bhagirath Mrameer Sachdeva Ms I Alka ChatrMh MrNikas Chatrath MrAmrik SinghMr KPS SandhuMrTribhawan SinglaMrGS Bal Mr Harinder C1 Shanna MrSK Arora MrAnil ChopraMrSunnySinglaand Z MrlOeepak GuptaAdvocates for thepetitioners 11 MrPuneet GuptaAddl Advoce General Punjabwith c MsCharu Tuli SeniorDAG Punjabfor the e V7 Z PERMOD KOHLI J Qe in all thesewrit petitions1S Common based upon identical factsand same questionof law The petitioners are claimingbenefit of the revised pay scales 4e with effect from 19061971 the date when the similarly situated government were held entitled to the revised pay scales on completion of five yearsof service These petitioners were denied bene8t 1 eeln1r Rawat Seema 2014.07.03 13: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 40 11 PtSv 44 14 vr re9a41eYw IP 9W 114ee CWP N014394 of2010 639 later all of them were grantedthe benefit with effect Som 16071975 This conUoversy earlier came up before this Court in CWP No208 of 1989 Lekh Raj Khera and others Vse State of Punjab and anotherl This writ petitionwas allowed vide judgmentdated 24032009 with thefollowingdirection In view of the abovelegaland factualposition m this petitionsucceedspartially are r directedto extendthe benefit of thePayrevision in 0 Ca case of petitionerswei l111971 instead of I C 167975 Theyare Ol directedto flx the pay scale of the such of the whose er Z unrevisedpay falls between two stagesin the new 54 time scale in the revised scale in the next stage r The processof Sxion of pay be completed within I rm0 a periodof four months from the date certified Z copy of this order is served upon the competent QO authorityThe consequential benefit be releasedin AW Z favour of the petitioners within a periodof two 0a monthsthereailer 2032009 6PERMODKOHLO IUDGE It is common case of the partiesthat all the petitioners are 94 govemedby the directions contained in Lekh Raj Kheras case 0supra noticed hereinabove However leamed counsel appearingfor the State has expressedreservationin regardto grantof reliefto these writ petitionersparticularly those who approachedthe Court after a long mumnPamemwAWUl Rawat Seema 2014.07.03 13: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 41 0 ae 119e 4e L ol 1 CWP N014394 of2010 49 re delayfor seekingthe relief As a matter of fact all the petitioners are seeking of thejudgmentof Lekh Raj Kheras case for their benefits In view ofthe objectionraised bythe on thequestionof delaythesewrit petitions were heardthoughprincip8lly all the writ petitions are coveredby the judgment rendered in Lekh Raj Kheras case 1 The Statehasrelied upon variousjudgments which are n6ticed hereunder 0 0 In the case of RegionalManager AP SRTC Vse Ne C5 and others2008 1 Supreme Court Cases 210 Honble I the SupremeCourt declined the prayer for regularisation of dailywagers Z frorn the date of their initial engagementin the year1986 in the writ 2 0 petition81ed in the year 1999 on the groundof delayand laches though I theywere entitledto such reliefunder an ofthe Court C3 Z In the case of Nadia Distte PrimarySchool CouncU and oo another Vse Sristidhar Biswas and others 020079 12 Supreme Court 7 Cases 779 theCourt declined thereliefon thegroundofdelayin thematter Z of whenthewrit petition was flled aer a periodof nine yearSe Om The relevant observationsare contained ltl 11 of the judgment afoesaid which are asunder 11 In the presentcase thepanelwas prepared in ee 1980 and the petitionersapproachedthe court ul 1989 aller the decision 111 Dibakar Pal Such persons should not be givenany benefit by the court when theyallowed more than nine years to ememwewaenweamK64440MUW4W161Wa4041 41 a Rawat Seema 2014.07.03 13: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 42 oIr ILf1 41e 91 5e Ill41 w V 1 CWPNo4394 of2010 65 elapse Delay is very significantin matters of reliefand court cannot come to the rescue of the personswho are not vigilantof their rights Therefore the Vlew taken by the High Court the deIayof mne yearscannot be countenanced 1 In Eastern CoalfleldsLimited Vs DugalKumar 6200814 Court Cases 295 a writ petition was filed after a decadeclaiming 0 0 the benefit of additional quantity of coal allottedto the company 10 years 9 beforethedate of filing of the writ petitionIt hasbeen held that inordinate I delayon the partof the petitioner in makingthe motion for a writ is an er Z groundfor reOlsingto exercisediscretion underArticle 226 of 1C 0 the ConstitutionofIndia 1r In the case of SS Balu and another vse State of Kerala and t others 200902 SupremeCourt Cases 479 Honble the SupremeCourt Z rnade followingobservationsto denythe relief when there is inordinate m delayl Z 4C 17 It is also wellsettled principleof law that Om delay defeats equity The Cvemment order was issued on 154e2002 The appellan did not file any writ applicationquestioningthe legalityand eea validitythereof Only after the writ petitionsfiled by others were allowed and the State of Kerala preferred an appealthereagainsttheyimpleaded themselves as It is now a trite vmeAmansaavwoaw41146ne40601I404 41 Rawat Seema 2014.07.03 13: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 43 1 1 ie4d CWP N0114394 of 2010 69 e1 law thatwhere the writ petitioner the HighCourt aRer a long delay reIiefs prayedfor rnaybe denied to them on the groundof delayand lachesirrespectiveof 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 State of Kerala or theCommission to appointthe at this 0 0 stage In NDMC v Pan Singhthis Court heldl I C5 SCC p283para16 I In the case of Shiv Dass Vse Union of India nd others Z 200799 SupremeCourt cases 274 the writ petitioner was denied the pensionin the year 1983 He filed a writ petitionin the High r Court in theyear 2005 This writ petition was dismissedby theHigh Coun I r the questionof delayand laches The Honble SupremeCourt Z 141 while remandingthe matter to the High Court made the following m observationsl mv Z 10 In the case of pensionthe cause of action Llm actuallycontinues from month to month That however cannot be a groundto overlook delayin filingthepetition It would dependuponthe fact 9 of each ease If petition 1S tIled beyond a reasonable period say three years normallythe Court would rejectthe same or restrict the relief which could be grantedto a reasonableperiodof OlPPYS64041WAv19 1PI4rIeea4bmee 4 l apa Rawat Seema 2014.07.03 13: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 44 F l CWP No14394 of2010 07 pC aboutthreeyears The HighCourt did not examine whether on merit the appellant had a case If on meritsit would have for interference it would have dismissed the writ petition on that score alone 35 Learned counsel appearing for the have also referredto various of this Court and also the government 0 instructionsin regardto implemention ofthe HighCourt 0 0 The StateofPunjabissued instructionsdated17072002 to all the Financial I Commissioners thePrincipalSecretariesandthe AdministrativeSecretaries l5 I to theGovemmentofPunjabThe instructionsare as under Z i9 Wherever the rightsof the partieshave been settledby a judgment of the Court the State has taken all remediesavailableto it in law againstthat I C3 judgment even uptothe highestcourt of the land Z and the judgment has attained finalitythen the n0 Statemustacceptthejudgmentand implement it in 3 Z its true spiritand cand There is implicit obligationon the part of the State to grant same relief to other membersof the cadre whose claim was basedupn identical factsand pointof law weV io The State Government shall as expeditiously as possiblein any case not later than four months react and respondto a legal served upon it by any of its employees in redressal 7e aWV4W4OUW Rawat Seema 2014.07.03 13: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 45 4OV4IWA u veedv ombrwln 0 r4 e CWP Nol4394 of2010 89 e of his of relief which has been to his coemployees similarlysituated 111 4 irtherance to thejudgment of the Court Unless for reasons to be indicated in the reply the State feels to denysuch relief Needless to pointout that denialmust neitherbe evasive nor intendedto circumvent theordersofthe Court m iio In the event such an employee is compelled 0 C to approach the COUrtof law whereupon the court I C5 awardsinterestandlorcosts while allowingsuch a I petitionthenthe incurred bythe State Ct Z including the costslinterestpaidin furtheranceto 5 the ordersofthe Court should be recoveredfrom 0 Ct theeningofficer I 3 iv The concernedquartersofthe Governmentare t Z 1 to work out the details in furtheranceto 00 Cr the above directions and issue pervasivebut mm Z definiteinstructionsto all itsdeparentsforthwith ll to ensure 33 1 In the case of State of Rarnataka Sc Orse Vse Ce Lalitha 460 620063 2 SCC 747 Honble the Supreme Court while consideringtheright ofsimilarlysituated persons observed as under 18 Service evolved by this Court from time to time postulatesthat a11 persons Sl ltbWmvnnawmW441 411 1 Rawat Seema 2014.07.03 13: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 46 a v04 ve r1 9 CWP N014394 of 2010 699 r similarlysituatedshould be treatedsimilarly Only becauseone person has the court that would not mean that persons similarlysituated 1 should be treateddifferently 23 I haveheardthelearnedcounselfor theparties at length The petitioners are similarly situatedas the writ peti8oners 111 m Lekh Raj Kheras case Supra9 However it is a fact that these writ Q have this Court aRer the judgmentof Lekh Raj 0 0 Kherascase for the similar relief The Statewhile concedingthat theyare I C5 similarlysituated resistedtheir claim onlyon the groundof delayin Oling I the writ The judgmentin Lekh Raj Kheras case has attained Z 8na1ityand the State has the same vide its circular dated 18082010 issuedbythe District Education Officer 6SE9Gurdaspurto all C I the Masters et The relevant instructions for its C are as underl Z et As per letter under reference directions were OO e issued to draw the arrears of the concerned with W2 Z regardto grantofpayscale from l11971 instead tl of 16771975in terms of the reportof the Kothari Commissionwithin a periodof 15 daysNow Civil Writ Petition Nol106212010has also been disposed 1 of by the Court in terms of the decision in Lekh Raj Kheras case Therefore if any petitionerof this writ petitionis pertainingto your school the due benefit be givento him within 10 days and Rawat Seema 2014.07.03 13: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Pr 47 1 9 Wl 40mO ILW 6 0 e1 ee CWP Nol4394 of2010 109 receipt be sent to this office While releasing pnt to the petitiooerthe Head of the School will ensure that the benefit has been given to the petitioner as per instructionslrules If due to the of the school Head any remaineddeprivedfor payment the 1 concernedSchool Head will be for the Q1 same 0 C3 From the above circular it is established that the State has C49 the judgment qua writ petitionersin Lekh Raj Kheras case Instructions dated1772002 referredto above clearlydepictsGovemments Z policy to implement thejudgmentsattainingfinalitynot only qua the writ but also in respectto all non as well who are 1 similarly situatedand may be entitledto similar relief These instructions I 11 are general in nature and applyin all such cases wherever thejudgment 1 Z against the State has attained finality Despitethese instructionshaving m e beenissued in the year 2002 the Stateis actingin derogation thereof and am Z similarly situatedpersonsare leR with no other optionbut to approach this 0n Court time and again This has the effect of burdening this Coun with unnecessary litigation and chockingthe justicedeliverysystemIt may also be noticed that not onlythe Govemmentitself hasdecided to implement the C judgmentin respectto all similarlysituated persons a Division Bench of this Court also issued generaldirections in this regardin the caseof Satbir SinghVse State of Haryana 2002 C29Service Cases Today 354 The relevant directions are contained in 19 of this judgmentwhich hUlSlUSSIarI4 e 4 l e4k Rawat Seema 2014.07.03 13: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 48 r V 1 V1Pl0094 1 T 4 eO CWPN014394 of 2010 119 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 issue the following directionsto theStatein the largerpublicinterest andfor properadministrationofjustice 1 o Wherever the rightsof the partieshave been settledby a judgment of the Court the Statehas 0 0 takenall remediesavailableto it in law againstthat I C9 judgment even uptothe highest court of the land I and the judgmmthas attaed Smlity then the Z Statemust acceptthejudgment andimplement it in 2 its true spiritand command There is implicit I obligation OIl the partof the State to grant same r relief to other membersof the cadre whose claim Z was basedupon identical factsand pointofl Cll Cr io Tlie StateGovemment shall as mm Z as possiblein any casenot laterthanfour months Ll react and respond toa legal served upon it by any of its employees in redressal of his of relief which has been eee grantedto his similarlysituated lrl furtheranceto thejudgmentof the Court Unless for reasons to be indicated in the reply the State feels compelledto deny such relief Needless to meeammmerwvmmI4W Il e Rawat Seema 2014.07.03 13: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document T 49 Ill I a1 O IV4141 4rr44lrv9 m l ne a4 sv e r44 r2 CWP Noe14394 of2010 129 pointout that denial must neither be evasive nor intended to circumvent the ordersofthe Court iii9 In the event such an employeeis compelled to approachthe court of law whereupon the court awardsinterestandlor costs while allowing such a petitionthenthe incurredbytheState 1 includingthe costslinterestpaidin Alrtheranceto the ordersofthe Court should be recovered from 0 0 theerringofficer I C9 iv The concernedquartersof the Governt are expectedto work out the details in 61rtherance to Z the above directions and issue pervasivebut definiteinstructionsto all its forthwith Q e I to ensure compliance P It is a matter ofconcernthatthe abovedirections issuedby this Z Court as far back as in the year 2002 are beingfloutedwith impunityThe CiO State has faited to discharge its obligationto grant relief to similarly 7 Z situatedpersons at its OWIl level Under such circumstancesit cannot be pennittedto pleaddelayand lacheswhere the Stateitself is responsible for unnecessarylitigationwhich could be conveniently tackled at administrative level on account of concluded and bindinjudgments ofthis Coun and the CeW Honble Supreme Court Apart from the above it has also come on record that afler Lekh R Kheras case a number of writ petitionscame to be filed in the year 2009 and 2010 which have been decided by this Court grantingthe aawnmWnenl4bn1W4 oeI Ilml Rawat Seema 2014.07.03 13: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SO ea e MevW 9 e1 149l a CWP N014394 of2010 613 r similarrelief as in Lekh Raj Kheras case and the State has chosen not to preferany appealagainstthosejudgments The questionof reeSxation of the sala lll fac givesa cause of action to the govemmentemployee as every month he loosessome amount from his salaryor retiralbenefits on account of wrong fixation of salary Thus the doctrine of delayand laches camot be 1 to be invoked as thumbrule in every case The cited 0 on behalfofthe Statemostlypertained to appointment matters seniority and 0 0 policymatters In Ce Lalithas case supra9Honble the Supreme Court I C5 has clearlyheld that similarlysituated persons should not be treated I Similarly111 Shiv Dasss case supra9 cited on behalfof the Z Honble the Supreme Court has againclearlyheld that Ul 2 0 casesofpensionat themost reliefcould be restrictedto threeyears I A Full Bench of this Court in the case of SarojKumari and others vse The state of Punjaband others 1998 Services Law Z Reporter266 have examinedthe questionof rexation in the context of CO delayin theCourt whereinit hasbeenheld as underl W2 Z 9 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted Qe that in case of wrong fixation of pay to which an employee may be entitled under the relevantrules instructions or even on account of a judgment 4eemee there is no questionof any limitation as the wrong pament of salaryevery month ls a continuing wrongagainsthim which givesnse to recurnng cause of action each time he is paidsalarywhich is emomw4tUor4nma490enU m4aI4tl I Rawat Seema 2014.07.03 13: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 51 2 ev49v 44 CeUU e 40ealrVe 61 CWPNo43940f2010 149 C not accordingto the relevant rules or a judgmenttheemployees in such a casehas a rightto ask for a direction to the State Cveent or to the employer to fix the pay rightfrom dayone in accordancewith the rules and instructions However while the relief of arrears of pay etc the same 10 3 canbe confined to three years and two months 0 0 which is the periodof limitationprovidedfor Z a relief of realisation of anears in a civil C5 suite r Z 14 For the foregoingreasonswe are of the view thatin cases where onlyflxation of pay according r r to therelevant ruleslinstructionsor a judgment 1S I 10 for thewrit petitioncannot be dismissedat Z the tluesholdon the groundof delayand lachesbut D r the paymentof arrears can be restrictedto a 9 P reasonableperiod Three years and two months 9 1 would be considereda reasonableperiodas that is 1 7 the periodfor which a person can ask for the 1 payment ofarrears beforea Civil Cour The cause ofthe petitioners isa recurring cause Thus the ratio of the judgmentof the Full Bench is applicableon all four comers to the factsof this case Petitionersrightcannot be defeatedmerelyon account of delayand laches thoughthe relief for arrears can be restrictedto a period 0904011aIa Im w41 M e4vbIl Rawat Seema 2014.07.03 13: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 52 eeeo eenmeeWaleS 1 P 0 CWP Nol4394 of2010 6150 C ofthree years as observed by Honble the Supreme Court and Full Bench of thisCourt referredto hereinabove In view of the abovecircumstancesthesepetitionsare allowed 111tenns of the judgmentin Lekh Raj Kheias case However the claim for l arrears lS restrictedto three years preceding the filingof the writ petitionSe No costs It is Slrther directed that all similarlysituated govemment may be grantedthe relief ln terms of Lekh Raj Kheras case 0 U thoughrestrictingclaim of arrears to three years It would be prudentand I C5 appropriatefor the Govemment to issue a circularlnotiflcationin this regard as earlyas possible to prevent81rtherlitigation on this question Z A copy of this orderbe placed Oll the file of otherconnected writ petitions 6e I C OO 1 L2 11052011 6PERMODKOHLO Z BLS JUDGE r11 lee 7 Notel Whetherto be referredto the Reporter7YES Z 01 C5 1 19 err WUOl 4 Rawat Seema 2014.07.03 13: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 53 eeeo eenmeeWaleS 1 P 0 CWP Nol4394 of2010 6150 C ofthree years as observed by Honble the Supreme Court and Full Bench of thisCourt referredto hereinabove In view of the abovecircumstancesthesepetitionsare allowed 111tenns of the judgmentin Lekh Raj Kheias case However the claim for l arrears lS restrictedto three years preceding the filingof the writ petitionSe No costs It is Slrther directed that all similarlysituated govemment may be grantedthe relief ln terms of Lekh Raj Kheras case 0 U thoughrestrictingclaim of arrears to three years It would be prudentand I C5 appropriatefor the Govemment to issue a circularlnotiflcationin this regard as earlyas possible to prevent81rtherlitigation on this question Z A copy of this orderbe placed Oll the file of otherconnected writ petitions 6e I C OO 1 L2 11052011 6PERMODKOHLO Z BLS JUDGE r11 lee 7 Notel Whetherto be referredto the Reporter7YES Z 01 C5 1 19 err WUOl 4 Rawat Seema 2014.07.03 13: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document