1 49 e e 9 d 1 r 1 AC P 1 CWP No4394 of2010 619 In theHighCourt ofPunjaband Haryana at Chandigarh Date ofdecisionl11052011 11 CWP No 14394 of2010 MajorSinghKhatkarandothersVs StateofPunjab and others 121CWP No188 of2011 r t Bhupinder SinghDhillon and others Vs StateofPunjab and others C 0 l31CWPNo 12748of2010 0 I Sodagar SahahGuptaand othersVs StateofPunjab and others C5 41 CWP Nol9490 of2010 I w SmtSantoshGuptaandothers Vs StateofPunjaband another Z A51CWPNo 17961of2010 ChamanLal Sethiand othersVs StateofPunjab and another I 61 CWPN018486of2010 Z AmarNatBhutani and othersVs StateofPunjab andothers rio 71 CWP Nol8846 of2010 W2 ChanderKanta and others Vs StateofPunjaband another Z f81 CWP N019964of2010 lw Kidar Nath Sharmaand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 91CWP N0199690f2010 Ajit Singhand others Vs State ofPunjaband another 109 CWP No 2457 of2011 e Sat Pal Vs The StateofPunjabandothers Olll CWP No 4647 of2011 r Ajit Singhand others Vs StateofPunjabandanother A9A e 4444e Radhika 2014.07.01 13: 37 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SO A ab4100619a 4 1 CWP Nol4394 of2010 629 e 412 CWP NoA166 of2011 GurcharanSinghBedi Vs StateofPunjaband others K139 CWP NoA123 of2011 GurcharanSinghand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 1141CWP No2975 of2011 RameshKumari Vs StateofPunjab andanother i 151 CWP No886 of2011 r MangalSinghand others Vs Stateof Punjaband another 0 C3 161 CWP NoA305 of2011 C5 SinghVs StateofPunjab andothers I Z CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI C2 Presentl Mr RK Arora MrYM Bhagirath MrSameer Sachdeva Ms AlkaChatrath MrNikas Chatrath Mrik SinghMr KPS I SandhuMrrribhawan SinglaMrGS Bal Mr Harinder ShannaMrSK Arora MrAnil ChopraMrunny Singlaand Z MrDeepak GuptaAdvocates for thepetitioners C0 MrlouneetGuptaAddl Advocate General Punjabwith MsCharuTuli Senior DAG Punjabfor the m Z PERMOD KOHLI J Controversyin all thesewrit petitionsls common based upon identical factsand same questionof law The petitioners are claimingbenefit of the revised pay scales ar with effect from 19061971 the date when the similarly situated employees were held entitled to the revised pay scales on of 8ve years of service Thesepetitioners were denied benefit m40ewAvmtaiaeaaAbU4 ae WV e Radhika 2014.07.01 13: 37 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 51 n 41o8a Iolel 911 19 18 CWP Nol4394 of2010 39 1 r l0 thoughlater all of them were grantedthe benefit with effect from 167975 This controversyearlier came up before this Court in CWP No208 of 1989 Lekh Raj Khera and others Vs State of Punjab and anotherl This writ petitionwas allowed vide judgmentdated 24032009 with thefollowing directionsl In view of the abovelegaland factualposition j this petitionsucceedspartially are 0c directedto extendthe benefltof thePayrevision in 0 0 case of we 111971 instead of I C49 1677975 Theyare 81rtherdirectedto flx the pay I scale of the such of the petitionerswhose Z unrevisedpay falls betweentwo stagesin the new 2 time scale in the revised scale in the next stage 1Z Theprocessoffixation ofpaybe within I a periodof four months from the date certified Z copyof this order is served upon the competent r1 4 authorityThe benefit be releasedin mw Z favour of the petitioners within a periodof two Oa monthsthereafter 24032009 PERMOD KOHLII JUDG It is common case of the partiesthat all the petitioners are e governedby the directions contained in Lekh Raj Kheras case Osupra noticed hereinabove However leamed counsel appearingfor the Statem respondents has expressed reservationin regardto grantof relief to these writ petitionersparticularly those who approachedthe Court atler a long 1SSW064SIOS WL6A e s Radhika 2014.07.01 13: 37 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 52 41 41 1 1 410 CWP Nol4394 of2010 49 1 delayfor seekingthe relief As a matter of fact all the petitioners are seeking ofLekh Raj Kheras case for their respective benefits In view ofthe objectionraisedbythe Statesponden on thequestionofdelaythesewrit petitions were heardthoughprincipally all the writ petitionsare covered by the judgment rendered in Lekh Raj Kheras case a 04 The Statehas relied upon vanous which are noticed hereunder 0 0 In the case of RegionalManagerAePe SRTC Vse Ne I C9 and others 200891 Court Cases 210 Honble I the SupremeCourt declined the prayer for regularisation of daily wagers Z from the date of their initial engagementlll the year 1986 in the writ 0 petitionflledn the j7ear1999 on the groundof delayand laches though theywere entitledto such reliefunder an ofthe Court t Z In the case of Nadia Distte PrimarySchool Council and CO another Vse Sristidhar Biswas and others 2007912 Supreme Court n Cases779 theCourt declinedthereliefon thegroundofdelayin the matter Z whenthewrit petition was flled aRera periodof nineyears tl The relevant observationsare contained in paragraph11 of thejudgment afotesaidwhich are asunder 11 In the presentcase the panelwas prepared 111 44eee 1980 and the petitionersapproachedthe court in 1989 aRer the decision 111 Dibakar Pal Such persons should not be given any beneflt by the court when theyallowed more than nine years to n Radhika 2014.07.01 13: 37 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 53 VISIeten6bor04nln p d5 A V CWP Nol4394 of2010 659 L1 elapse Delay is very significantin matters of relief andcourt cannot come to the rescue of the personswho are not vigilantof their rights Therefore the Vlew taken by the High Court the delayof nine years cannot be countenanced 1 In Eastern Coalfields Limited Vse DugalKumar 2008914 r Supreme Court Cases 295 a writ petitionwas filed after a decadeclaiming 0 0 the benefit of additional quantity of coal allottedto the company 10 years I 0 beforethe dateof fllingof the writ petitionIt has been held thatinordinate I delayon the part of the petitioner in makingthe motion for a writ is an Z groundfor re81sing to exercise discretion under Article 226 of 0 the ConstitutionofIndia I In the case of SS Balu and another vse State of Kerala and C3 others 2 Supreme Court Cases 479 Honble the Supreme Court Z made followingobservationsto denythe relief when there is inordinate C0 delayl A7 Z 44 17 It is also wellmsettledprincipleof law that Qm delaydefeatsequity The Govemment order was issued on 1512002 The appellantsdid not Ole any writ application the legalityand eW validitythereof Only after the writ petitionsfiled by others were allowed and the State of Kerala prefened an appeal they impleaded themselves as panyespondentsIt is now a trite m4aeemo eav46le 4 1 Radhika 2014.07.01 13: 37 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 54 4 4e 92 1 r4 0A411S3 rt 96 a 4 4 CWP No14394 of 2010 669 e law that where the writ petitionerapproaches the High Court afler a long delay reliefs prayedfor rnaybe 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 appellants at this 0 0 stage In NDMC v Pan Singhthis Court held I 0 SCC p283para169 I In the case of Shiv Dass Vse Union of India 8nd others Z 200719 SupremeCourt cases 274 the writ petitionerwas denied the disabilitypensionin the year 1983 He flled a writ petition C4 111the High I Court in the year 2005 This writ petitionwas dismissedby theHighCourt C the questionof delayand laches The Honble Supreme Z Court 41 while the matter to the High Court made the following CO observationSl 7Z 10 In the case of pensionthe cause of action actuallycontinues from month to month That however cannot be a groundto overlook delay111 filingthe petition It would dependuponthe fact e of each case If petition filed beyond 1S a reasonable period say three years normallythe Court would rejectthe same or restrict the relief which could be grantedto a reasonableperiodof vmaeeenetmenl VW41a0 I4 141 Radhika 2014.07.01 13: 37 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 55 1141 IIvIem9e 44 4 CWP Nol4394 of2010 79 aboutthreeyears The HighCourt did not examine whether on merit the appellanthad a case If on rneritsit would havefOUndthat therewas no scope for interferenceit would have dismissedthe writ petition on thatscore alone 15 Learned counsel appeanngfor the have also m referred to various judgmentof this Court and also the government r instructionsin regardto of the of the HighCourt 0 0 The StateofPunjab issuedinstructionsdatedl0702002 to all the Financial C9 thePrincipal Secretariesand the AdministrativeSecretaries I to theCvernment ofPunjabThe instructions are as underl Z i Whereverthe rightsof the partieshavebeen 2 Settledby a judgment of the Court the Statehas I takenall remediesavailableto it in law againstthat judgmenteven uptothe highestcourt of the land Z and the judgmenthas attained finalitythen the C Statemust acceptthejudgment and implement it in a Z its tnle spiritand command There 1S implicit Qu obligation on the part of the Stateto grantsame relief to other membersof the cadre whose claim was basedupn identicalfactsand pointof law eea ii The StateGovernmentshall as as possiblein any case not later than four months react and respondto a legal served upon it by any of its employees in redressal 1041946 Radhika 2014.07.01 13: 37 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 56 e 40 r 64e1 3 b er 1 CWP Nol4394 of2010 89 1 of his of relief which has been grantedto his coemployees similarlysituated 111 furtheranceto thejudgment of the Court Unless for reasons to be indicated in the reply the State feels to denysuch relief Needlessto pointout that denialmust neitherbe evasive nor 1 intended to circumventthe ordersofthe Coun 0 6iio In the event such an employee is compelled 0 Co to approachthe court of law the court 0 awardsinterestandlorcosts while allowing such a I petitionthen theexpenditure incurred bythe State Z includingthe costslinterestpaid Ul 61rtherance to 2 the ordersofthe Court should be recovered from I theerringofflcer iv The concernedquartersofthe Governmentare Z expectedto work out the details111Slrtheranceto m the above directions and lssue pervasivebut Z definite instructionsto all its forthwith Om to ensure compliance In the case of State of Rarnataka8c Orse Vse C Lalitha 4ee 200692 SCC 747 Honble theSupreme Court while considering the right ofsimilarlysituated persons observedas underl 18 Service evolved by this Court from time to time postulatesthat all persons e911 OPem Radhika 2014.07.01 13: 37 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 57 PA CWP Nol4394 of2010 C90 e similarlysituatedshould be treatedsimilarly Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarlysituated shouldbe treated differently 53 I haveheardtheleamed counselfor thepartiesat length The petitioners are similarlysituatedas thewrit petitioners 111 m Lekh Raj Kheras case supra9 However it is a fact that these writ Q have this Court aRer the judgmentof Lekh Raj 0 0 Kherascase for the similarrelief The Statewhile thattheyare C9 similarlysituated resistedtheir claim onlyon the groundof delayin ftling I the writ petitionsThe ltl Lekh Raj Kheras case has attained Z finalityand the State has implemented the same vide its circular dated 2 18082010 issuedbythe District Education Offlcer 6SE Gurdaspur to all r I the Masters etc The relevant instructions for its r are as under1 Z As per letter under reference directions were 01 issued to draw the arrears of the concemed with I7 Z regard to grantofpayscale from 111971 instead of 16771975in terms of the reportof the Kothari Commissionwithin a periodof 15 daysNow Civil Writ Petition NoS06212010hasalso been disposed I4 of by the Court lll tenns of the decision in Lekh Raj Kheras case Therefore if any petitionerof this writ petitionis pertaining toyour schoothe due benefit be givento him within 10 days and e Radhika 2014.07.01 13: 37 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 58 1V4 evlPS4W4eOV AIea m P CWP No4394 of2010 10 receipt be sent to this office While releasing paymentto the petitionerthe Head of the School will ensure that the benefit has been correctly givento the petitioneras per instructionslrulesIf due to the of the school Head any petitionerremaineddeprivedfor payment the m concemed School Head will be responsible for the Q same 0 0 From the above circular it 1S establishedthat the State has I C9 implemented the judgment qua writ petitionersin Lekh Raj Kheras case I Instructionsdated 1772002 referredto above clearlydepictsGovernments Z policyto the attainingfinalitynot only qua the writ Q but aIso in respectto all non as well who are I similarly situatedand may be entitledto similar relief These instructions r are generalin nature and applyin all such cases wherever the judgment Z againstthe State has attained flnality Despitethese instructionshaving ClO beenissuedin theyear 2002 tlie Stateis actingin derogationthereof and mno Z similarlysituated personsare lefl with no other optionbut to approachthis Ole Court time and again This has the effect of this Court with Unnecessarylitigationand chocking the justicedeliverysystem It may also be noticed that not onlythe Governmentitselfhasdecided to implementthe Cme judgmentin respect to all similarlysituatedpersons a Division Bench of this Court also issued eneraldirectionsin this regardlll the case of Satbir SinghVse State of Haryana2002 29Service Cases Today 35 The relevant directionsare contained in paragraph19 of this judgmentwhich emvsmwm erImomWWeW e Radhika 2014.07.01 13: 37 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 59 40 1a611WW vIl aItvol P a 1 CWP No4394 of2010 6119 r are as under 19 Be that as it may particularlyin the afore referred premiseswe still feel that it is the bounden dutyof the Court to issue the following directionsto the Statein the largerpublicinterest andfor properadministrationofjusticel j 0 Wherever the rightsof the partieshavebeen settledby a judgment of the Court the State has 0 0 taken all remediesavailableto it in law againstthat I C5 judgment even uptothe highestcourt of the land I and the judgmenthas attained finality then the Z Statemust acceptthejudgment and implement it in 2 its true spiritand command There is implicit 41 I obligation on the part of the Stateto grant same relief to other membersof the cadre whose claim Z was basedupon identicalfacts andpointoflaw oo er ii9 The StateGovernmentshall as 17 Z as possible in any case not laterthanfour months ll react and respond to a legal served upon it by any of its employees in redressal of his of relief which has been 1a grantedto his coemployeesimilarlysituated 111 81rtheranceto thejudgmentof the Court Unless for reasons to be indicated in the reply the State feels Compelled to denysuch relief Needless to m llR1 VnLl1 Radhika 2014.07.01 13: 37 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 60 4e e9 r b a Ss1WM rl l4e14 5n eW J ee CWP Nol4394 of2010 12 pointout that denial must neither be evasive nor intended to circumvent theorders ofthe Court iii In the event such an employee is compelled to approachthe court of law whereupon the court awardsinterestandlorcosts while allowing such a petitionthenthe incurredbytheState a including the costslinterestpaidin furtheranceto r the ordersofthe Court should be recovered from 0 0 theerring C40 6ivlThe concernedquartersofthe Govemment are I expectedto work out the details in Alrtrance to 4 Z the above directions and issue pervasivebut 2 definite instructionsto all its deents forthwith r to 33 It is a matter of concern that theabovedirectionsissuedbythis Z Court as far back as in the year 2002 are beingfloutedwith impunityThe r e State has failed to discharge its obligationto grant relief to similarly em Z situatedpersons at its own level Under such circunlstancesit cannot be 11 permitted to pleaddelayand lacheswhere the Stateitself is responsible for unnecessary litigationwhich could be tackled at administrative level on account of concluded and bindingjudgments of this Court and the C Honble Supreme Court Apart from the above it has also come on record that aRer 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 r bem Radhika 2014.07.01 13: 37 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document t 61 bIlr1tAl U4 0 4 It n r 4 e CWP Nol4394 of2010 13 r similar relief as in Lekh Raj Kheras case and the Statehas chosen not to preferany appealagainstthosejudgments The questionof relxation of the salary 111fac4 gives a recurring cause of action to the govemmentemployeeas every month he looses some amount from his salaryor retiral benefltson account ofwrong fixation of salary Thus the doctrineof delayand laches cannot be 1 pennitted to be invoked as thumbrulein every case The cited 0 on behalfofthe Statemostlypertained to appointment maUers seniorityand 0 0 poIicymatters In C Lalithas case Honble the Supreme Court I C5 has clearlyheld that similarlysituated persons should not be treated I Similarlyin Shiv Dasss case supralcited on behalf of the Z Honble the Supreme Court has againclearlyheld that 111 2 1 casesofpensionat themost reliefcould be restrictedto threeyears I A Full Bench of this Court in the case of SarojKumari and others vse The state of Punjaband others 1998 059Services Law Z er Reporter266 have examinedthe questionof reefixation in the context of 00 delayin the Court wherein it hasbeenheld as underl S7 Z 9 Learnedcounselfor the submitted Qs that in case of wrong fixation of payto which an employee may be entitledunder the relevantrules instructions or even on account of a judgment 4eeeee thereis no questionof any limitation as the wrong paymentof salaryevery month ls a continuing wrongagainsthim which givesrise to recurring cause ofaction each time he is paid salarywhich is Il 9A4ltwmx vveeU Radhika 2014.07.01 13: 37 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 62 rtle 6n4w001uee I e o oeeMI I rOC prvnanedre s c e CWP No14394 of2010 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 Gveent or to the employer to fIx the pa correctlyrightfromdayone in accordancewith the relevantrules and instructions However while n granting the relief of arrears of pay etc the r same can be confinedto three years and two months 0 0 which is the periodof limitation providedfor t5 getting a relief of realisationof arrears in a civil I suit Z 14 For the reasons we are of the view Q that in cases where onlyfixation of pay according I to the relevant or a judgment 1S C3 prayedfor the writ petitioncannot be dismissedat Z the thresholdon thegroundofdelayand lachesbut clo the paymentof arrears can be restricted to emo a Z reasonableperiod Three years and two months ll would be considereda reasonableperiodas that is 1 the periodfor which a person can ask for the paymentofarrearsbefore a Civil Court c The cause of thepetitioners is a recuuingcause 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 restricted to a period In4metrm0e1e m Radhika 2014.07.01 13: 37 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 63 5wlwAaaem4vwwiwaAl n e Ie 4e1e02S IL CWP Nol4394 of2010 159 r ofthree years as observedby Honble the Supreme Court and Full Bench of thisCourt referredto hereinabove In view of the above circumstancesthesepetitionsare allowed lll termsof the judgmentin Lekh Raj Kheras case However the claim for j arrears 1S restrictedto threeyearspreceding the filingof the writ petitions No costs 1 It is 61rtherdirected that all similarlysituatedgovernment 0 may be granted the relief in terms of Lekh Raj Kheras case 0 C40 though restricting claim of arrears to threeyears It would be prudentand I for the Govemment to issue ae circularlnotification in this C5 I regard as earlyas possible to prevent81rtherlitigation on this question Z A copy of this orderbe placed on the flle of other connected 2 writ petitions C e CJ 11052011 PERMOD KOHLO Z BLS JUDGE CQ Lew m7 Note Whetherto be refened to theReporter2YES Z 0a a V1 0 e ee 1 14 e Il 4 4304040Wll Radhika 2014.07.01 13: 37 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document