IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPAs No.237 of 2010, 98 of 2011 and CWP No.6680 of 2010-G Date of decision : November 22, 2011 LPA No.237/2010 State of H.P. and another …Appellants. Versus Madan Lal Tomar and others …Respondents. LPA No.98/2011 State of H.P. and another …Appellants. Versus Mrs. Ashwani Kumari …Respondent. CWP No.6680/2010 D.R. Chauhan and others …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellants/ : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Petitioners Advocate General, in LPAs No.237 of 2010 & 98 of 2011. Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate, in CWP No.6680 of 2010. For the Respondents : Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate, in LPA No.237 of 2010. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, in LPA No.98 of 2011. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General, in CWP No.6680 of 2010. Deepak Gupta, Judge(Oral) These three cases are being decided by a common judgment since common questions of law and Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… fact are involved. For decision of these cases, it is only necessary to refer to the facts of LPA No.237 of 2010. LPA No.237/2010 2. Briefly stated, the dispute revolves around the pay-scale to which the respondents, who were working as Assistant Librarians, are entitled to. 3. At the outset, it may be mentioned that earlier four writ petitions, being CWPs No.189/1979, 196/1981, 246/1981 and 116/1982, were filed in this Court. In all these cases the petitioners were graduates. All had done matriculation/higher secondary and had passed certificate course in Library Science. They were employees of the Department of Education and engaged as Assistant Librarians. Their services were governed by the Himachal Pradesh Education Department Class-III (Technical) Service (Recruitment, Promotion and certain Conditions of Service) Rules, 1971. According to the petitioners, there was only one cadre of Assistant Librarians in the Schools/Colleges/Public Libraries, being maintained by the Education Department. 4. On 7th July, 1981, an order was issued that the Assistant Librarians would get pay-scale of `300-600, with effect from November 1, 1966. The case of the petitioners in all the aforesaid writ petitions was that they were also working as Assistant Librarians, holding …3… identical posts and were fully qualified to hold the said posts and, therefore, no discrimination could have been made against them vis-a-vis their senior colleagues, in the matter of grant of pay-scale. 5. The respondents-State admitted that there was only a single cadre of Assistant Librarians manning the libraries in the Schools/Colleges/Public Libraries. The stand of the State was that the pay-scale of `300-600 was allowed on the basis of seniority, to the senior Assistant Librarians. 6. On the constitution of the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, the aforesaid writ petitions were transferred to the said Tribunal. All the writ petitions were heard and decided together vide order dated 26th July, 1993. The Tribunal by its order decided the following question: “Whether the State is justified in granting the revised pay-scale of `300-600 to only a few Assistant Librarians on the basis of seniority, when there is only one cadre of Assistant Librarians in Schools/Colleges/Public Libraries, maintained by the Education Department and all the Assistant Librarians are performing the same and similar functions and duties?” The Tribunal, after detailed discussion, held as follows: “Following the ratio of the above judgments, we direct the respondents to revise the pay scale of the applicants and other similarly situate Assistant Librarians in Schools/Colleges/Public Libraries and Community Centre Libraries under the Himachal Pradesh Education Department to …4… Rs.300-600 in consonance with the Office order dated July 7, 1981 Annexure PB, within a period of two months and they be allowed all further consequential benefits to which they are found entitled subsequently consequent upon this revised pay scale. We further direct that the arrears found due and payable as a result of such revision be paid to them within a period of three months after such revision.” (Emphasis supplied). 7. A bare perusal of the operative portion of the order of the Tribunal clearly shows that the Tribunal directed the State to revise the pay-scales of the petitioners and other similarly situated Assistant Librarians to `300-600. It is not disputed before us that this order of the Tribunal attained finality and was never challenged by the State before any higher forum. 8. Unfortunately, the State did not comply with the aforesaid directions, insofar as other similarly situated persons are concerned. It issued a letter on 16th June, 1994 and in this letter it directed that the pay- scale of `300-600 would be granted only to the senior Assistant Librarians as a measure personal to the existing incumbents. To say the least, this letter was in total violation of the directions issued by the Tribunal. The stand of the State that the higher pay-scale of `300-600 was payable only to the senior Assistant Librarians is totally contrary to the orders passed by the Tribunal. At this stage, we are not going into the validity of the orders passed by the Tribunal since they had attained finality. If …5… the State was aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal, it had the right to challenge the said orders in the appropriate forum. It chose not to challenge the orders and, therefore, was bound to comply with the same. The order, the operative portion of which has been quoted hereinabove, in no uncertain terms states that all Assistant Librarians, i.e. the petitioners as well as other similarly situated were to be granted the pay-scale of `300-600. The judgment was a judgment “in rem and not in personam”. The State could not have set at naught the judicial pronouncement of the Tribunal. 9. The Stand of the State is that senior Assistant Librarians formed a separate class. The State cannot be permitted to raise this ground since before the Tribunal it had specifically been conceded by the State that all the Assistant Librarians, who were working in Schools/ Colleges/Public Libraries, maintained by the Education Department, constituted one homogeneous class. The State now wants to take up a plea which was never raised before the Tribunal in the previous litigation. 10. Even otherwise, on perusal of the record, the learned Single Judge found that all the Assistant Librarians were doing the same job and there was a common seniority list and the conditions of service were also the same. Therefore, all Assistant Librarians were …6… entitled to the higher pay-scale of `300-600, irrespective of the date of appointment. Therefore, we find no merit in the LPA, which is accordingly dismissed. LPA No.98/2011 11. The facts of this appeal are identical and the learned Single Judge only followed the judgment delivered in the CWP(T) No.6018/2008, but restricted the monetary benefit of arrears for a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the petition. We find no merit in this LPA also. CWP No.6680/2010 12. The petitioners, herein, were also Assistant Librarians, who had since retired. In this case the petitioners did not approach the Tribunal or this Court till the decision of CWP(T) No.6018/2008 and had filed this writ petition only on 7th October, 2010. Shri D.R. Chauhan, Petitioner No.1 retired on 30th September, 2000, Shri Balkrishan Verma, Petitioner No.2 retired on 31st May, 2003, Shri Sant Ram Chauhan, Petitioner No.3 retired on 31st March, 2009 and Shri Laiq Ram Sharma, Petitioner No.4 retired on 30th April, 2006. The reliefs claimed by them are virtually the same. It is directed that they shall also be entitled to the pay-scale of `300-600 as Assistant Librarians and shall also be granted other consequential benefits, in terms of the judgment of this …7… Court in CWP(T) No.6018/2008. However, the benefit of arrears shall be restricted from 1st November, 2007, i.e. three years prior to the filing of the writ petition. The writ petition is allowed, in the aforesaid terms. Accordingly, the LPAs are dismissed and the writ petition disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Deepak Gupta ), J. November 22, 2011(sd) ( V.K. Ahuja ), J