55 n4 n I nl 4444 2 A 1 vl C7 1 CWPNo14394 of2010 19 In theHighCourt ofPunjabandHaryanaat Chandigarh Date ofdecision 11052011 A11 CWP No 14394 of 2010 MajorSinghKhatkar and othersVs StateofPunjaband others 21CWP NoA1880f2011 t e SinghDhillon andothersVs StateofPunjab andothers 0 0 A31 CWP Nol2748 of2010 0 Sodagar SahahGuptaand othersVs StateofPunjaband others C5 41 CWP N019490of2010 I SmtSantoshGuptaand others Vs StateofPunjaband another Z A51CWPNo7961 of 2010 0 ChamanLal Sethi and others Vs StateofPunjaband another I 61 CWP N018486 of2010 t Z AmarNathBhutaniand othersVs StateofPunjab andothers m 71 CWP No8846 of2010 7 ChanderKanta andothers Vs StateofPunjaband another Z 81 CWP N019964 of2010 Kidar Nath Shannaand othersVs StateofPunjaband another 191CWP No 19969of2010 Ajit Singhand others Vs StateofPunjaband another A101CWP No 2457 of2011 cl Sat Pal Vs The State ofPunjaband others Olll CWP NoA647 of2011 1 Ajit Singhand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 1I vdwlod e l 5e 4e Rashmi 2014.07.02 14: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 56 4 CWP Nol4394 of2010 2 r 4121CWP No 4166 of2011 GurcharanSinghBedi Vs StateofPunjaband others K131CWP N041230f2011 GurcharanSinghand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 141 CWP No2975 of2011 RameshKumari Vs State andanother 1 151 CWP No886 of2011 0 MangalSinghandothers Vs Stateof Punjaband another 0 0 161 CWP NoA305 of2011 I C5 SinghVs StateofPunjabandothers I Z CORAM1 HONBLE MR JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI 2 Q Presentl Mr RKArora MrYM BhagirathMrSameerSachdeva Ms I Alka Chatmth MrNikas ChatrathMrAmrik SinghMr KPS Sandhu MrTribhawanSinglaMrGS Bal Mr Harinder C Shanna MrK Arora Mrnil ChopraMrSumySinglaand Z MrDeepakGuptaAdvocates for thepetitioners C Mruneet GuptaAddl AdvocateGeneral Punjabwith MsCharu Tuli SeniorDAG Punjabfor the Ia Z PERMOD KOHLI J fl Controversy in all thesewrit petitionslScommon based upon identicalfactsand same questionof law The petitioners are claing benefit of the revised pay scales 4e with effect from 19061971 the date when the similarly situated govemment were held entitled to the revised pay scales on completion of Sve years of service These petitioners were denied benefit mwwMnwrsmaoamwmmmsw 196 Rashmi 2014.07.02 14: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 57 4 14 CWP Noa14394of2010 639 thoughlater all of them were grantedthe benefit with effect from 1671975 This controversyearlier came up before this Court in CWP No2208 of 1989 Lekh Raj Khera and others Vse State of Punjaband another1This writ petitionwas allowed vide judgmentdated 24032009 with thefollowing directions In view of the abovelegaland factualposition 1 this petitionsucceedspartially are CC directedto extendthe bene8tofthe Payrevision in 0 0 case of petitioners we l l 11971 instead of I t5 167975 Theyare furtherdirectedto flx the pay I scale of the such of the petitionerswhose Z unrevisedpay falls betweentwo stagesin the new 2 Cl time scale in the revised scale in the next stage I The processoffixation ofpaybe within r a periodof four months from the date certified Z copy of this order is served upon the competent m 41 authorityTheconsequential benefitbe releasedin 3 Z favour of the petitioners within a periodof tWo ll monthsthereatler 24032009 PERMOD KOHLI JUDGE 1 It is common case of the partiesthat all the petitioners are w govemedby the directions contained in Lekh Raj Kheras case supral noticed hereinabove However leamed counsel appearing for the Statee has expressedreservationin regardto grantof relief to these writ petitionersparticularlythose who approachedthe Court after a long 1n5el4414444164 0100 1 Rashmi 2014.07.02 14: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 58 Ie ee V4V ta CWP Nol4394 of2010 49 delayfor seekingthe relief As a matter of fact all the petitioners are seeking of thejudgment of Lekh RajKheras case for their respective benefits In view ofthe objectionraisedbythe on thequestionof delaythesewrit petitions were heardthoughprincipally all the writ petitions are coveredbythe rendered111 Lekh Raj Kherascase 1 C The Statehas relied upon vanous judgments which are noticed hereunder 0 C3 In the case of RegionalManagerAePe SRTC Vsa Ne I 0 and others 20089 1 Supreme Court Cases 210 Honble I the Supreme Court declined the prayer for regularisation of dailywagers Z from the date of their initial engagementin the year 1986 in the writ 2 C2 petition81edin the year 1999 on the groundof delayand lachesthough I t Z In the case of Nadia DisttePrimarySchool Council and QO another Vse Sristidhar Biswas and others 07912 Supreme Court ww Case Z whenthewrit petition was flled a8era periodof nineyears tl The relevant observationsare contained in paragraph11 of the judgment afotesaidwhich are asunderl 11 In the presentcase the panelwas prepared 111 6eaea 1980 and the petitionersapproachedthe court ln 1989 atler the decision lll Dibakar Pal Such persons should not be givenany beneflt by the court when theyallowed more than nine years to WOIe Ie Rashmi 2014.07.02 14: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 59 r e2 Il16014P IIlVeIlle 1 4V 4 CWP Nol4394 of2010 59 elapse Delay is very significantin matters of granting relief and court cannot come to the rescue of the personswho are not vigilantof their rights Therefore the Vlew taken by the High Court condoningthe delayof nine years cannot be countenanced i In Eastern Coalflelds Limited VseDugalKumar 6200814 Q Supreme Court Cases 295 a writ petition was filed aer a decadeclaiming 0 0 the benefit of additionalquantity of coal allottedto the company 10 years I 9 beforethe date of filingof the writ petitionIt hasbeen held that inordinate I delayon the partof the petitioner in makingthe motion for a writ is an Z groundfor re81sing to exercise discretion under Article 226 of 2 r theConstitutionofIndia I In the case of SS Balu and another vse State of Kerala and others 200992 Supreme Court Cases 479 Honble the Supreme Court Z made followingobservationsto denythe relief when there is inordinate m delayl 3 Z 44 17 It is also wellesettledprincipleof law that delaydefeatsequity The Governt order was issued on 15120020 The appellantsdid not 81e 1 37 writ applicationquestioningthe legalityand emW validitythereof Onlyaer the writ petitionsfiled by others were allowed and the State of Kerala preferred an appeal theyimpleaded themselves as partespondents It is now a trite eeeme 0 09W0416AI4nl 04Il l e 1 Rashmi 2014.07.02 14: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 60 9 0 e0 4n94Vbld P ewV nM l 4 t CWP Nol4394 of2010 66 a law that where the writ petitionerapproaches the High Court after a longdelay reliefs prayedfor may be denied to them on the groundof delayand laches of the fact theyare similarly situatedto the other candidateswho obtain the benefit It is thus not possible for 1 US to issue any directionto the Stateof Kerala or 0 the Commission to appointthe at this 0 0 stage In NDMC v Pan Singhthis Court held I C5 SCC p83 para 1697 I In the case of Shiv Dass Vse Union of India ind others Z 200719 Supreme Court cases 274 the writ petitionerwas denied the disability pensionin the year 1983 He filed awnt petitionin the High L I Court in the year 2005 This writ petitionwas dismissedbythe HighCourt 0 the questionof delayand Iaches The Honble Supreme Court Z while the matter to the High Court made the following Q0 observations 7 Z 10 In the case of pensionthe cause of action tl actuallycontinues from month to month That however cannot be a groundto overlook delay111 1 filingthe petition It would dependupon the fact Cee of each case If petition 1S filed beyonda reasonable period say three years normallythe Court would rejectthe same or restrict the relief which could be grantedto a reasonable periodof S we40m0 Aa I bWr 1 w Rashmi 2014.07.02 14: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 61 1 1 In J e e 4 aISne41 a 1 6 1 44C m CWP Nol4394 of2010 67 aboutthreeyears The HighCourt did not examine whether on merit the appellanthad a case If on meritsit would have found that therewas no scope for interferenceit would have dismissed the writ petitionon that score alone Learned counsel appeanngfor the have also 1 referredto various of this Court and also the lr government 0 C0 The StateofPunjab issuedinstructions dated17072002 to all theFinancial I 9 Commissioners thePrincipal Secretariesandthe AdministrativeSecretaries I to the GovernmentofPunjabThe instructions are as underl Z i9 Whereverthe rightsof the partieshave been 2 C settledby a judgment of the Court the State has takenall remediesavailableto it in law againstthat judgment even uptothe highestCOurtof the Iand Z and the has attained finalitythen the m Statemust acceptthejudgment and implement it in 7 Z its true spiritand command There 1S implicit 0m obligation on the part of the State to grant same relief to other membersof the cadre whoseclaim was basedupn identicalfactsand pointoflaw weeW cii9 The StateGovernmentshall as expeditiously as possiblein any case not later than four months react and respondto a legal served upon it byany of its employees in redressal SM444tOsauw Rashmi 2014.07.02 14: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 62 44 Ill b4 anrlI 1 CWP Nol4394 of2010 68 e of his of relief which has been grantedto his similarlysituated in 81rtherance to thejudgment of the Court Unless for reasons to be indicated in the reply the State feelscompelled to denysuch relief Needlessto pointout that denialmust neitherbe evastve nor m intended to circumventthe ordersofthe Court r iiO In the event such an employee is compelled 0 3 to approachthe court of law whereupon the court C9 awardsinterest ndlor costs while allowing such a I petitionthenthe incurred bythe State e1 Z including the costslinterestpaid furtheranceto in the ordersofthe Court should be recovered from I theening iv The concernedquartersofthe Govemmentare Z expectedto work out the detailsin lrtherance to 1D the above directions and lssue pervasive but ImV Z definiteinstructionsto all its forthwith m to ensure compliance In the case of State of Rarnataka0 OrSe Vse Ce Lalitha e4eO 200692 SCC ofsimilarlysituatedpersons observedas underl 18 Service evolved by this Court from time to time postulatesthat all persons rwwml4r4e44oV dIl Rashmi 2014.07.02 14: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 63 11 l V I0M Z l CWP Noe14394of2010 9 ee similarlysituatedshould be treatedsimilarlyOnly becauseone person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarlysituated should be treated 33 I haveheardthe leamedcounselfor thepartiesat length The petitioners are similarly situatedas thewrit petitioners ln j Lekh Raj Kheras case 0supra However it is a fact that these writ C4 petitionershave approached this Court aRer the of Lekh Raj 0 0 Kherascase for thesimilarrelief The Statewhile concedingthattheyare C9 similarl situated resistedtheir claim onlyon thegroundof delayin filing I the wnt petitionsThe Lekh Raj Kheras Ul case has attained Z finalityand the State has the same vide its circular dated 2 18082010issuedbythe District Education Officer CSE9Gurdaspur to all I the Masters etc The relevant instructions for its are as under Z As per letter under reference directions were m issued to draw the arrears of the concerned with mw Z regardto grantofpayscale from 11971 instead of 167975 in tenns of the reportof the Kothari Commissionwithin a periodof 15 daysNow Civil Writ Petition No806212010has also been disposed 44 of by the Court in terms of the decision in Lekh Raj Kheras case Therefore if any petitionerof this writ petitionis pertaining to your school the due benefit be given to him within 10 days and eIlIee Rashmi 2014.07.02 14: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 64 I l 044L1WIe p n 1 CWP No4394 of2010 10 receipt be sent to this offlce While releasing paymentto the petitionerthe Head of the School will ensure that the benefit has been correctly given to the petitioneras per If due to the of the school Head any petitionerremained for payment the concerned SchoolHead will be responsible 0 for the same 0 0 From the abovecircular it is established that the State has I 9 thejudgment qua writ petitionersin Lekh Raj Kheras case I Instructionsdated 1772002 referred tO abOveClearlydepictsGovemmenrs Z policyto implement the finalitynot only qua the wnt 2 petitioners but also in respectto all non as Well who are I similarly situatedand may be entitledto similar relief Theseinstructions C3 Z are generalin nature and apply111all such cases whereverthe judgment 14 against the State has attained finalityDespitethese instructionshaving f10 beenissued in the year 2002 the Stateis actingin derogation 7 thereof and Z persons are left with no otheroptionbut to approachthis Ll Court time and again This has the effect of this Court with unnecessarylitigationand chocking thejusticedeliverysystem It may also implement the C judgmentin respect to all similarlysituated persons a Division Bench of this Court also issued generaldirectionsin this regardin the case of Satbir SinghVse State of Haryana2002 2 ServiceCases Today 354 The relevant directionsare contained in paragraph 19 of this judgmentwhich A 1 W 4r w la Rashmi 2014.07.02 14: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 65 aeeev 44 CWP N014394 of2010 0119 r are as underl 19 Be that as it may particularly lll the aforee referred premises we still feel that it is the boundendutyof the Court to issue the following directionsto the Statein thelargerpublicinterest and for properadministrationofjustice W 6il Whereverthe rightsof the partieshavebeen r 0 settledbya of the Court the State has 0 takenall remediesavailable to it in law againstthat I C5 judgment even uptothe highest court of the land and the judgment has attained finalitythen the Z State must acceptthejudgment and implement it in its true spiritand cornmand There 1S implicit I on the part of the State to grant same 1 Z relief to other membersof the cadre whose claim was basedupon identicalfactsand pointoflaw r0 er iO The StateGovemmentshall as Z as possiblein any case not laterthanfour months Ll react andrespondto a legal served upon it by any of its employees in redressal of his of relief which has been e grantedto his similarlysituated lll 81rtherance to thejudgmentof the Court Unless for reasons to be indicatedin the replythe State feelscompelledto denysuch relief Needlessto 9 mmmmwr4eAmewelwnl2 Rashmi 2014.07.02 14: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 66 1 1I14 4vl4w4aen 4 vv11e1el e4 CWP N014394 of2010 129 point out that deniaI must neither be evasive nor intended to circumvent the ordersofthe Court 6iio In the event such an employee is compelled to approachthe court of law whereuponthe court awardsinterestandlorcosts while allowing such a petitionthenthe incurredbytheState 1 including the costslinterestpaidlll 61rtherance to 0 the ordersofthe Court should be recovered from 0 0 theerring I C5 ivl The concemedquartersofthe Governmentare I expectedto work out the details lll furtheranceto 14 Z the above directions and lssue pervasivebut deflniteinstnlctionsto all its depents forthwith I to ensure It is a matter of concern that the above directionsissuedbythis Z Court as far back as in theyear 2002 are beingfloutedwith impunityThe ClO State has failed to its to grant relief to similarly Z situatedpersonsat its OWn level Under such circumstancesit cannot be Om permitti to pleaddelayand lacheswhere the Stateitself is responsible for unnecessary litigationwhich could be conveniently tackled at administrative level on account of concluded and binding of this Court and the C Honble Supreme Courte 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 year 2009 and 2010 which have been decided by this Court grantingthe m904400 Rashmi 2014.07.02 14: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 67 ep60w06ree eseuwree4p e IneH e 1 CWP Nol4394 of2010 13 4 r similar relief as in Lekh Raj Kheras case and the Statehas chosen not to preferanyappealagainstthose The questionof remfixationof the salary lll fact givesa recumng cause of action to the govemmentemployee as every month he Ioosessome amount from his salaryor retiralbenefitson account of wrong flxation of salary Thus the doctrineof delayand laches cannot be 1 permitted to be invoked as thumbrule in every case The cited Q onbehalfoftheStatemostlypertained to appoint matters seniority and 0 0 policymatters In Ce Lalithas case supra HonbIe the Supreme Court I C5 has clearlyheld that similarlysituatedpersons should not be treated I Similarly 10 Shiv Dasss case cited on behalf of the Z Honble the Supreme Court has againclearlyheld that 111 2 C2 casesofpensionat the most reliefcould be restrictedto Uuee years I A Full Bench of this Court in the case of SarojKumari and others vse The state of Punjaband others 1998 59 Services Law Z Cr Reporter266 have examinedthe questionof reefixation in the context of 0 delayin the Court wherein it hasbeenheld as underl 2 Z 9 Leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that in case of wrong fLration of payto which an employeemay be entitledunder the relevant rules instructions or even on account of a judgment 4mee there is no questionof any limitation as the wrong paymentof salaryevery month is a continuing wrongagainsthim which givesnse to recurring cause of action each time he is paid salarywhich is Rashmi 2014.07.02 14: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 68 O1l 4 1111mrlllPhAee I Iv 11Orl4e aee3 v V e4r CWP Nol4394of2010 141 r not computedaccordingto the relevant rules instructions or ajudgmentthe in such a case has a rightto ask for a direction to the State Goveent or to the employer to fix the pasr correctlyrightfromdayone in accordancewith the relevantrules and instructions However while a granting the relief of arrears of pay etc the same can be confinedto threeyears and two months 0 C which is the periodof limitation providedfor I 9 gettinga relief of realisationof arrears in a civil suit Z 14 For the foregoing reasonswe are of the view that in cases whereonlyfixation of pay according r I to therelevant ruleslinstructions or a judgment 1S C prayedfor the writ petitioncannot be dismissedat Z thethresholdon thegroundof delayand lachesbut m the paymentof arrears can be restricted to a n7 Z reasonableperiod Three yearsand two months tl would be considered a reasonableperiodas that is the periodfor which a person can ask for the paymentofarrears before a Civil Court I4 The cause ofthe petitioners is a recurring cause Thus the ratio of thejudgmentof th Full Bench is applicableon all four corners to the factsof this case Petitionersrightcannot be defeatedmerelyon account of delayand laches thoughthe relief for arrears can be restrictedto a period Rashmi 2014.07.02 14: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 69 14 014 eesvwr4 1n6 04 e CWPNol4394 of2010 159 r ofthree yearsas observedby Honble theSllpremeCourt andFull Bench of thisCourt referredto hereinabove In view ofthe abovecircumstancesthesepetitions are allOWed in termsof the in Lekh RajKheras case However the claim for l arrears is to threeyearspreceding the filingof the writ petitions No costs It is Slrtherdirectedthat all similarlysituatedgovernment 1 C may be the relief in terms of Lekh Raj Kheras case 0 0 though claim of arrears to three years It would be prudentand I for the Govemment to issue a circularlnotificationin this C5 I as earlyas possible to prevent61rtherlitigation on this Z A copy of this orderbe placed on the flle of otherconnected 2 writ petitions tt I 1 C 112011 PERMOD KOHLO Z BLS JUDGE Cn le mm NotelWhetherto be referredto theReporter9YES Z 0m 0 r Insm e6WaWnn e 4 Rashmi 2014.07.02 14: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document