IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 155 of 2007. Date of decision: 2.12.2009 HPSEB …. Petitioner Versus Sh.Pawan Kumar. ….. Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.Baldev Singh, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate vice Mr.G.R.Palsara, Advocate. _________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) The short question involved in this case is as to from which date the respondent is entitled to get the monetary benefits pursuant to the order dated 8th August, 2005 passed in his favour. The undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent who was previously working as Superintendent Grade-II and later on as Section Officer was getting lesser pay than his junior 2 Smt.Kamlesh Malhotra w.e.f. 1.1.1997. The petitioner made a representation on 7.6.2003 and thereafter, sent a legal notice on 15.1.2004 to the Board that since his junior was drawing higher salary than him, he could also be granted step up and his pay be equated to that of the junior. This representation of the petitioner was accepted by the Board vide order dated 8.8.2005. However, it was directed that the petitioner would be entitled to financial benefits w.e.f. 8.8.2005 only and prior to that he would only be entitled to notional benefits. Aggrieved by the order of the Board, the respondent filed an Original Application before the learned Tribunal praying that he be also granted monetary benefits from the year 1997 onwards. This application has been allowed by the learned Tribunal and the Board has been directed to grant financial benefits to the respondent w.e.f. 1.1.1997. Aggrieved by the said order, the Board is before us. We have heard Sh.Baldev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh.Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3 On behalf of the Board, it is urged that since the respondent approached the Board only in the year 2003 and the decision was taken in the year 2005, he could not have been granted monetary benefits prior to the said date. It has been urged that monetary benefits prior to the said date could not be claimed since they were time barred. On the other hand, Sh.Tek Chand Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order of the learned Tribunal. Even as per the averments made in para 6(v) of the Original Application, according to the applicant himself, he was getting lesser salary than Smt.Kamlesh Malhotra w.e.f. 1.1.1997 and he had been making several representations. But the only representation he has annexed with the Original Application is the one dated 7th June, 2003. We have perused this representation and find that there is no reference in the said representation to any earlier representation. In fact, the Board in its reply has also categorically stated that no representation prior to 7th June, 2003 was ever received by it. 4 If a person keeps silent and does not agitate his rights then his remedy is lost. The petitioner by keeping silent for almost six years cannot now be entitled to get the arrears for the period prior to the date when he made the first representation. We are of the considered view that the learned Tribunal fell in error while directing that the arrears on account of stepping up should be paid from 1.1.1997. On the other hand, we also feel that once the petitioner had made a representation, the Board was not justified in granting him the benefit only from the date of passing of the order. The minute the petitioner had brought to the notice of the Board that he was being discriminated against and his junior was drawing higher salary, the Board should have immediately decided his representation. If the Board sits over the matter for two years and takes such a long period to decide the representation, the employee cannot be denied the benefit of his legitimate dues. The Board itself decided the matter in favour of the employee. Therefore, there is no justification in denying him the 5 monetary benefits for the period prior to 7.6.2003 when he made the representation to the Board. We therefore, partly allow the writ petition and modify the order of the Tribunal and hold that the respondent-employee would be entitled to monetary benefits pursuant to the order dated 8.8.2005 w.e.f. 7.6.2003 when he made the representation to the Board. The Board is directed to ensure that the monetary benefits are paid to the respondent within four months from today. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge December 2, 2009 (V.K.Ahuja) (m) Judge