IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP (T) No.11468 of 2008 Decided on: May 27, 2011 Kuldip Singh ..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner was employed as English Teacher in the year 1966, by a private school named and styled as Sunder Singh Malha Singh High School, Indora, District Kangra. He was B.A. in English at that time. He did his B. Ed in 1968. In the year 1971, school was taken over by the Government. Services of the teachers and other staff, including those of the petitioner, were taken over. Pay scale of TGTs at the relevant time was `220-500. Petitioner had been drawing pay of `236, in the aforesaid pay scale, at the time of taking over of the school and his services, by the Government. However, the Government, after taking over Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É of the school and the services of the petitioner, fixed the pay of the petitioner at the minimum of the aforesaid pay scale, i.e. `220. 2. Principal of the school wrote to the District Education Officer, in the year 1995, vide Annexure A-5, that the pay of the petitioner had wrongly been fixed at `220 and that as a matter of fact, when he was drawing pay of `236, in the aforesaid pay-scale, at the time of taking over the school and, therefore, his pay was required to be protected. Ever since the matter has been pending with the respondents. 3. In the meanwhile, petitioner superannuated in the year 2002. After retirement, he filed an Original Application before the erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal, seeking issuance of a direction to the respondents to refix his pay right from the date of the taking over of the school. Petitioner sought fixation of his pay, at the time of taking over of the school, at `236/, the pay which he was drawing at that time. He also sought fixation of his pay in the revised pay scales of TGTs effective from 1978, 1986 and 1996, taking into account his pay to be `236, as on the date of the taking over of the school and his services. Petitioner also sought re-fixation of his pension, on the basis of his revised pay. 4. Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal having been abolished in the year 2008, the Original É3É Application has come to this Court and has been reregistered as CWP(T) 11468/2008. 5. Respondents, in their reply, have stated that the petition is hit by delay and latches. Also, it is alleged that government has rightly fixed the pay of the petitioner at the minimum of the aforesaid pay scale, i.e. `220-500, at the time of taking over of the school as also the services of the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. As regards the contention that the petition is hit by delay and latches, grievance of the petitioner amounts to be a continuing cause of action. He had been getting lesser salary than due to him, till his superannuation, and now he is getting lesser pension, because of wrong fixation of his pay. Since the cause of action is continuing, petition cannot be dismissed, on the ground of delay and latches, though the claim of the petitioner, for arrears, can be restricted to three years, prior to the year of the institution of Original Application. 8. As regards the merits of the case, respondents do not deny that the petitioner had been getting pay of `236 in the pay scale of `220-500, when the school was taken over and on account of the taking over of the school, services of the petitioner were also taken over by the government. Petitioner is not seeking higher pay in some É4É higher scale. He has sought only the protection of his pay in the same pay scale, which the respondents, in their reply, say was applicable to government teachers. Petitioner’s pay was required to be protected. A recommendation for the same was also made by the Principal of the school, as noticed hereinabove. Respondents took no action on the recommendation of the Principal. 9. In view of the above discussion, present petition is allowed and respondents are directed to refix the pay of the petitioner, treating his pay to be `236 in the pay scale of `220-500, as on the date of taking over of the school and his services, i.e. 21.4.1971. Respondents are further directed to refix the pay of the petitioner in the revised pay scales, on the aforesaid assumption. His pension and death-cum- retirement gratuity are also directed to be revised on the basis of his re-fixed pay. Aforesaid directions be complied with, within three months. May 27, 2011(ss) (Surjit Singh), J.