63 01 d 3 i r Ie CWP Nol4394 of 2010 19 In theHighCourt ofPunjabandHaryanaat Chandigarh Dateofdecisionl 11052Oll 11 CWP No 14394of2010 MajorSinghKhatkarandothersVs StateofPunjab and others 2ICWP NoA1880f2011 r e SinghDhillon andothers Vs StateofPunjab and others C 0 31CWP Nol2748 of2010 0 SahahGuptaandothersVs StateofPunjab and others 5 41 CWP Nol9490 of2010 A SmtSantoshGuptaandothers Vs StateofPunjaband another Z L5ICWPNo7961 of2010 L ChamanLal Sethiand othersVs StateofPunjab andanother Ct I k61CWPN0184860f2010 t Z AmarNathBhutani andothersVs StateofPunjab andothers c CQ 471CWP Nol8846 of2010 7 Chandera and othersVs StateofPunjab and another Z A81CWP N019964of2010 KidarNathSharmaand others Vs StateofPunjab and another e91CWP No9969 of2010 1 AjitSinghand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 101 CWP No 2457of2011 C Sat Pal Vs The StateofPunjabandothers 6111CWP NoA647 of2011 1 AjitSinghand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 1C691ale 4 Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document e 64 6 CWP No14394 of2010 21 r 47129 CWP No 4166 of2011 GurcharanSinghBediVs StateofPunjabandothers 131CWP NoA123of2011 GurcharanSinghand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 141 CWP No975 of2011 RameshKumari Vs StateofPunjab andanother m 151 CWPN02886 of2011 5 MangalSinghand others Vs Stateof Punjab and another 0 0 61CWPNoA305 of2011 9 SinghVs StateofPunjab and others I 14 Z CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present Mr RK Arora MrM MrSameer Sachdeva Ms e1 Alka Chatrath MrVikas ChatrathMrik SinghMr KPS I SandhuMrrribhawan SinglaMrGS Bal Mr Harinder C ShannaMrK Arora MrAnil ChopraMrSunnySinglaand Z MrDeepak GuptaAdvocates for thepetitioners t m MrPuneetGuptaAddl AdvocateGeneral Punjabwith MsCharu Tuli Senior DAG Punjabfor the m Z PERMOD KOHLI J Om in all thesewrit petitions1S common based upon identicalfactsand same questionof law The petitioners are claimingbeneflt of the revised pay scales r4 with effect from 1906971 the date when the similarly situated were held entied to the revisedpay scales on completion of five years of service These were denied benefit ei1 WnW4PK4W4 eS Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 65 n9 n4 4 1 4411Seer e 4 6 Ll CWP No4394 of2010 3 P 4 later all of them were grantedthe benefit with effect from 16071975 This controversyearlier came up before this Court in CWP No2208 of 1989 Lekh Raj Khera and others Vse State of Punjab and anotherlThis writ petitionwas allowedvide judgmentdated24032009 withthefoIlowing directionsle In view of the abovelegaland factualposition 1 thispetition succeedspartially are t directedto extendthe benefttof thePayrevision in 0 C case of wei 111971 instead of 1671975Theyare furtherdirectedto flx the pay 0 scale of the such of the petitionerswhose C Z unrevisedpay falls betweentwo stagesin the new r timescalein the revisedscale in the next stage Lr Theprocessof flxationof paybe within C a of four months from the date certifled Z copyof this orderis servedupon the competent Ql The benefltbe releasedin mw Z favour of the within a periodof two Il rnonthsthereaftere 24032009 PERMOD KOHLI JUDG 1 It is common case of the partiesthat all the petitioners are 99e0eW by the directions contained in Lekh Raj Kheras case noticedhereinabove However leamed counsel appearing for the Stat has reservationin regardto grantof relief to these writ petitionersparticularlythose who approached the Coun after a long Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 66 40 4 4r CWP N014394 of2010 41 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 Stateespondents on thequestion of delaythesewritpetitions were heardthoughprincipally all the writ petitions are coveredby the judgmentrenderedin Lekh Raj Kherascase 1 The Statehasreliedupon VMlOUS which are noticed l hereunder 0 0 In the case of RegionalManagerAeP SRTC Vs Ne I t3 and others 1 Court Cases 210 Honble the Court declined the prayer for of dailywagers Z from the date of their initial engagementin the year1986 in the writ 0 petitionflled in the year 1999 on the ground of delayandlachesthough theywere entitledto such reliefunder an ofthe Court t3 Z In the case of Nadia DisttePrimarySchool Council and Cr C0 another Vs Sristidhar Biswas and others 12 Supreme Court c Aav Cases779 theCourtdeclinedtherelief on theground of deIayin the ma Z whenthewrit petition was flled a8era periodof nineyears The relevant observationsare contained lll 11 of the judgment afesaidwhich are asunderl 11 In the presentcase the panelwas prepared 111 4eeeew 1980 and the petitionersapproachedthe court ln 1989 aer the decision in Dibakar Pal Such persons should not be givenany beneSt by the COUrt when theyallowed more than nine years to LU610VOhWISI IOU141010e deoWeew Ivor Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 67 1 1 e7 64 I I v v l O CWP Nol4394 of2010 59 elapse Delay 1S verysignificantin matters of granting relief and court cannot come to the rescue of the personswho are not vigilantof their rights Therefore the View taken by the High Court the delayof nine years cannot be countenanced 1 In Eastern Coalflelds Limited Vs DugalKumar 62008J 14 Court Cases 295 a writ petition was Sled after a decadeclaiming 0 0 the benefit of additional of coal allottedto the company 10 years C5 beforethe dateof fllingofthe writ petitionIt has beenheldthat inordinate delay on the partof the petitioner in making the motion for a writ 1S 811 Z groundfor refusing to exercise discretion under Article 226 of r theConstitutionofIndia 4 I In the case of SS Balu and another vse State of Kerala and t3 others 200912 Supreme Court Cases 479 Honble the Supreme Coun Z rnade followingobservationsto denythe relief when there is inordinate delayl WA Z 44 17 It is also wellsettled principleof law that Qm delaydefeats equity The Governmentorderwas issued on 15200 The did not file anywrit application the legalityand validitythereof OnlyaRer the writ petitions ftled e4aew by others were allowed and the State of Kerala preferred an appeal they impleaded themselves as partrrespondentsIt is now a trite a446064ee16P4 001 4 Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 68 d 4 1 4 n t n0Wh4W4e INV 0 9 0 CWP Nol4394 of2010 69 law that where the writ petitionerapproaches the HighCourt atler a longdelayreliefs prayedfor maybe denied to them on the groundof delayand laches of the fact theyare similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefitofthe It is thus not possible for 1 US to issue any directionto the Stateof Kerala or Q theCommission to appointthe at this 0 0 stage In NDMC v Pan Singhthis Court heldl I 0 SCC p283para 169 In the case of Shiv Dass Vse Union of India and others r Z 200719 Supreme Court cases 274 the writ petitioner was denied the disabilitypensionin the year 1983 He flled a writ petitionin the High 0 tt Court in the year 2005 This writ petition was dismissedbytheHighCoun I t0 the of delayandlaches The Honble Supreme Coun Z while the matter to the HighCourt made the following C0 rr observationsl a Z 10 In the case of pension the causeof action tl actually continues from month to month That however cannot be a groundto overlook delay111 1 filingthepetitioll It would dependupon the fact 4c of each case If petition1S filed beyonda reasonable periodsay three years normallythe Court would rejectthe same or restrict the relief whl could be grantedto a reasonableperiodof o401141aeev4 e4 Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 69 1r1S 119Vo 4195ne 41Il Sl 0 40 CWP No14394 of2010 67 aboutthreeyears The HighCourt did not examine whether on merit the appellanthad a case If on rneritsit would havefound that therewas no scope for interference it would have dismissed the writ petition on thatscore alone 93 Learned counsel appearing for the have also referredto various of this Court and also the government l instruc8onsin regard to implementaon ofthe HighCourt 0 t0 The StateofPunjabissued instructionsdated17002 to all the Financial C9 ComlnissionersthePrincipal Secretariesand theAdministrative Secretaries to the GovernmentofPunjabThe instructionsare as under1 Z o Wherevertherightsof the partieshave been 2 settledby a judgment of the Court the Statehas Q 14 takenall rerneds avaiIableto it in law againstthat I l3 even uptothe highestcourt of the land Z r and the judgment has attained flnality then the OO r1 Statemust acceptthejudgment and it in n7 Z its true spiritand command There is implicit QV obligation on the part of the State to grant same relief to other membersof the cadre whose claim was basedup8nidentical factsand pointof law io The State Governmentshall as expeditiously eev as possiblein any case not Iater than four months react and respondto a legal servedupon it by any of its employees in redressal Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 70 n09aSInWOl s 4S lp CWP No4394 of2010 689 e of his of relief which has been granted to his coemployeesimilarlysituated in furtheranceto thejudgmentof the Court Unless for reasons to be indicated in the replythe State feels to denysuch relief Needlessto pointout that denial must neitherbe evasivenor 1 intendedto circumvent the ordersofthe Court r 6iiil In the event such an employee is 0 CAO to approach the COUrt of law whereupon the COUrt I 0 awardsimerest andlorcosts while allowingsuch a I peton then the incuned bythe State Z including the costslinterestpaidin 8lrtherance to theordersofthe Court should be recoveredfrom tr theerring0f6cer I ivo Theconcemedquarters ofthe Governmentare Z to work out the details in furtheranceto 00 r4 the above directions and issue pervasivebut m Z definiteinstructionsto all its forthwith Ll to ensure compli In the case of State of Rarnataka Orse Vse Ce LaHtha 4 2006 2 SCC 747 Honble theSupreme Court while considering theright ofsimilarlysituatedpersonsobservedas unt 18 Service evolved by this Coun from time to time postulatesthat all persons 1 144P1 1 Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 71 e 4 m141n101 Iv 1 s 4 rle 7 V CWP N014394 of2010 699 r similarlysituatedshould be treatedsimilarlyOnly becauseone person has the court that would not mean that persons similarlysituated shouldbe treateddifferentlye 33 I haveheardthe leamed counselfor theparties at length The are similarly situatedas thewrit 111 m Lekh Raj Kheras case supral However it lS a fact that these writ have this Court aer the judgmentof Lekh Raj 0 0 Kherascase for thesimilarrelief The Statewhile thattheyare I 9 similarly situatedresistedtheirclaim onlyon the ground of delayin filing I the writ petitionsThe in Lekh Raj Kheras case has attained Z finalityand the State has the same vide its circular dated 2 18082010 issuedby the District Education Offlcer 6SE9Gurdaspur to all 0 r4 I the Masters etc The relevant instructions for its C3 are as underl Z As per letter under reference directions were OO issued to draw the arrears of the concemed with V Z regard to grantofpayscalefrom l11971 instead fJm of 1671975 in terms of the reportof the Kothari Commissionwithin a periodof 15 daysNow Civil Writ Petition No806212010hasalso beendisposed 4 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 beneSt be givento him within 10 days and WAsn4mes4 e Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 72 v e en414 1Mo40120 A CWP N014394 of2010 109 receiptbe sent to this office While releasing paymentto the petitionerthe Head of the School will ensure that the benefit has been correctly givento the petitioner as per instructionslrules If due to the of the school Head any remaineddeprivedfor paymentthe m concemedSchoolHeadwill be for the C same 0 C3 From the abovecircular it is established that the State has C9 implemented the judgment qua writ petitionersin Lekh Raj Kheras case Instructionsdated17772002refened to above clearlydepictsGovernmenrs Z policyto the attainingfinalitynot only quathe writ O but also in respectto all non as well who are similarly situatedandmay beentitledto similar relief Theseinstructions C are generalin nature and applyin all such cases wherever thejudgment Z againstthe State has attained flnality Despitetheseinstructions having C beenissued in the year 2002 the Stateis actingin derogationthereofand 17 Z similarly situatedpersonsare left with no otheroptionbut to this Qm Court time and again This has the effect of this Court with litigationand chockingthejusticedeliverysystem It may also benoticed thatnot onlythe Govemmentitselfhasdecidedto implement the C judgmentin respectto all similarly situatedpersons a Division Bench of this Court also issued generaldirections in this regardin the case of Satbir SinghVse State of Haryana2002 Service Cases Today 354 The relevant directions are contained lll paragraph 19 of this judgmentwhich Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 73 4 6 1 60Ve W e 4 Yl w 11 11 P e4 1 ee CWPN014394 of2010 ll C areas under 19 Be that as it may particularly in the aforem referred premiseswe still feel that it is the boundendutyof the Court tO lSsue the following directionsto theStatein the largerpublicinterest andfor properadministrationofjustice m 6i9Wherever the rightsof the partieshave been C settledby a of the Court the Statehas 0 C takenall remediesavailableto it in Iaw against that I t5 even uptothe highest court of the land and the judgment has attained flnality then the et Z Statemust acceptthejudgment and implement it in C its true spiritand command There is implicit I on the partof the State to grantsame relief to other membersof the cadre whose claim Z wasbasedupon identical factsandpointof law CO iil The StateGovent shall as 7 Z as possible in any casenot laterthanfour months Oa react and respond to a legal servedupon it by any of its employees in redressal of his of relief which has been 4e granted to his similarlysituated 111 Olrtheranceto thejudgment of the Court Unless for reasons to be indicated in the replythe State feels compelledto denysuch relief Needless to waDeemenanomceso 2 Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 74 e 6 9 440a LI vl 4WIlllrtm aa elv CWP No14394 of2010 12 pointout that denial must neither be evasive nor intended to circumvent the ordersofthe Court iiil In the event such an employeeis compelled to approachthe court of law the court awardsinterestandlorcosts while allowing such a petitionthenthe incurredbytheState 1 including the costslinterestpaidin furtheranceto r the ordersof the Court should be recovered from 0 U theerringofficer6 I C5 iv9 The concernedquarters ofthe Govemmentare expected to work out the details in furtheranceto Z the above directions and issue pervasivebut 4 2 definiteinstructionsto all its forthwith r 1 to ensure Il I C3 It is a matter of concern that the above directionsissuedbythis Z Courtas far back as in the year 2002are beingfloutedwith impunityThe Cll State has failed to discharge its obligationto grant relief to similarly eam Z situatedpersons at its OWn level Under such circumstances it cannotbe Om to pleaddelayand lacheswhere the Stateitself is for litigationwhichcould be tackled at administrative level on account of concluded and biliding of this Coun and the r Honble Supreme Court Apartfrom the above it has also come on record that after Lekh Raj Kheras case a number of writ petitionscatne to be filed in the year 2009 and 2010 which have been decided by this Court grantingthe WAIew menmee4Wae1404 Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 75 41 V e4 1 4 bIwoW1 9I nJO a4 e CWP No4394 of2010 13 r similarrelief as in Lekh RajKheras case and the Statehas chosen not to preferany appealagainst those The questionof rfon of the salary lll fac4 givesa recurring 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 doctrineof delayand laches cannot be 1 permitted to be invoked as thumbrule in every case The cited on behalf of the Statemostlypertained to mauers seniorityand 0 0 policymatters In C Lalithas case Honble the Supreme Court 0 has clearlyheld that similarlysituatedpersons should not be treated Similarly lIl Shiv Dasss case 6supracited on behalf of the Z Honble the Supreme Court has againclearlyheld that in casesofpensionat themost reliefcouldbe restrictedto threeyears 4 I A Full Bench of this Court in the case of SarojKumari and others vse The state of Punjaband others 1998 9 Services Law Z t 266 have examinedthe of reefLxationin the context of ClO delayin the Court whereinit has beenheld as underl V Z 9 Leamedcounselfor the submitted Om thatin case of wrong fixationof pay to which an may be entied under the relevant rules instructions or even on account of a judgment eeee0ee thereis no questionof any limitation as the wrong paymentof salaryevery month lS a continuing wrongagainsthim which givesrise to recumng causeof action eachtimehe is paidsalarywhich is Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 76 0 440 Sl1 1ce2Ierme r Gae e e 14 e ene ea e CWP N014394 of 2010 149 r not computedaccordingto the relevant rules instructions or ajudgmentthe employees in such a case has a rightto ask for a direction to the State Government or to the employer to fix the pay correctlyrightfromdayone in accordancewith the relevantrules and instructions However while 1 the relief of arrears of pay etc the same can be confinedto threeyears and two months 0 4 which is the periodof limitation providedfor C9 gettinga relief of realisation of arrears in a civil suit Z 14 For the reasons we are of the view that in cases whereonlyfixation of pay 0 to the relevant or a 1S t prayedfor the writ petitioncannot be dismissedat Z the thresholdon thegroundof delayandlachesbut oo the paymentof arrears can be restricted to a A7 Z reasonableperiod Three years and two months Qm would be considereda reasonableperiodas that is the periodfor which a person can ask for the paymentof arrears beforea Civil Court C The cause of thepetitioners is a recuning cause Thus the ratio of thejudgmentof the 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 mSlm4W4 W Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 77 1C41V 0114W 44422eI 4b CWP No14394of2010 159 r ofthree yearsas observedby Honble the Supreme Court and Full Bench of this Court referredto hereinabove In view of the abovecircumstancesthesepetitions are allowed ln tenns of thejudgmentin Lekh RajKheras case However the claim for arrears is restrictedto threeyearspreceding the fllingof the writ petitions No costs 1 It is further directedthat all similarlysituatedgovernment r may be grantedthe relief in tenns of Lekh Raj Kheras case 0 Co thoughrestricting claim of arrears to threeyears It would be prudentand I 0 for the Govemment to issue a circularlnotificationin this I regard as earlyas possible to preventfurtherlitigation on thisquestion e Z A copy of this orderbe placed on theflle of otherconnected writ petitions CC 11052011 ERMOD KOHLI9 Z BLS JUDGE OO l 7 Notel Whetherto be refened to theReporter2YES Z Ll C C C52 4em4 1 l e r r eel11411 4 4 1 Rashmi 2014.06.05 16: 20 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document