IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 687 of 2010 Decided on: 29.12.2011. __________________________________________________________ Virender Singh, son of late Sh. Bali Ram, resident of village Baghal, P.O. Kharam, Tehsil Rampur District Shimla HP … Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Himachal Pradesh, through Principal Secretary (Health) to the Govt. of H.P., Shimla. 2. The Director of Health Services, Govt. of H.P. Shimla. … Respondents. Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. For the Petitioner : Shri Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General, Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (oral) The petitioner has approached this Court with identical prayers. One set of prayers is extracted below: “i) That action of the respondents in denying the pay scale of Rs.400-600 (corresponding to Rs.950-1800) to the petitioner as a Cook w.e.f. the date of his appointment/joining w.e.f. 24.3.1995 and the revised scales of Rs. 3120-5160 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 when, given to - 2 - others vide Annexure P-2 to Annexure P-6 may be held as illegal & discriminatory. ii) That the respondents may be directed to give the pay scale of Rs.400-600 (corresponding to Rs.950-1800) from the date of appointment/joining as a cook on 24.3.1995 and the revised scales thereof of Rs. 3120-5160 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 with pay fixation benefit and arrears with all consequential benefits forthwith.” 2. We find that the erstwhile Tribunal and this Court had occasion to consider the issue leading to several judgments. One such judgment is Annexure P-2 in CWP No.171 of 2004, which was decided on 17.11.2005,wherein it has been held that the incumbents are entitled to pay scale of Rs.400-600 w.e.f. March, 1980, as revised from time to time. The entitlement for arrears was, however, limited to a period of three years. We also find that the issue in principle has attained finality since the Government has accepted the judgment and has implemented the same, as can be seen from Annexure P-4,order passed by the Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Government of H.P. and Annexure P-6, order passed by the Principal Secretary (Health). We also find from Annexure P-3, order dated 28.2.2006, that the Government had issued a general direction addressed to the Director, Health Services, to implement the pay scale on a notional basis giving the benefit to all the 76 Cooks in the Department. That direction is dated 28.2.2006. Despite such a Government decision and direction to the Directorate, the benefits thereof have not been granted to the petitioner herein, who is the Cook. For the purpose of easy reference, we may extract Annexure P-3, order dated 28.2.2006, which reads as follows: “I am directed to refer to your letter No.HFW-H(Legal Cell)CWP -171/04 dated 9.2.2006 on the subject cited above and to state that the advice of the Law Department was obtained on the subject which has been received as per Annexure ‘A’ attached. As per this advice it is clear that payment of arrear is liable to 26 applicants/petitioners only from 3 years back from the date of filing of O.A. However, the pay scales are to be given to the - 3 - petitioners/applicants and others on a notional basis form 1.3.1980 onwards till date of filing of O.A., whereafter these pay scales are to be released on regular basis notionally to all the 76 Cooks in the Department. You are, therefore, requested to implement the decision accordingly under intimation to this Department immediately.” 3. The low paid employees should not have been dragged to this Court. This is an ideal case where exemplary cost should have been imposed on the respondents. However, in view of the persuasive submissions made by the learned Deputy Advocate General, we reluctantly refrain from doing so. However, we do not find any reason not to grant actual monetary benefits to the petitioner at least with effect from the date when the Government has issued a direction to implement the pay scale. 4. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to notionally fix the pay scale at Rs.400-600 in the case of the petitioner w.e.f. 24.3.1995, as revised from time to time. However, the petitioner shall be entitled to actual monetary benefits w.e.f. 1.3.2006, the month following Annexure P-3. 5. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. (Justice Dev Darshan Sud) Judge December 29,2011 (ms/hl)