CWP No.5405 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5405 of 2008 Decided on : 20.03.2009 Bansi Lal and others ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present:- Mr. R. K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. P. K. Rohilla, Advocate for the for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. AJAY TEWARI J. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not granting them consequential benefits pursuant to their regularization. An earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners was disposed of in the following terms:- “In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The decision contained in Annexure P-4 is quashed with a direction to respondent No.2/competent authority to consider the petitioner’s case for regularization of service in accordance with the policy contained in circular letter dated 7.3.1996 read with circular letter dated 18.3.1996 and pass appropriate order within a period of 3 months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. If it is found that the petitioner fulfills the CWP No.5405 of 2008 -2- conditions enumerated in the policy, then his services be regularized and he be given all consequential benefits.” Thereafter, admittedly the petitioners were regularized from the due date i.e. 1.2.1996. At one stage, the arrears were paid to them w.e.f. 11.7.2006 but subsequently the respondents have decided not to grant them arrears for the period from 1.2.1996 to July, 2006. The defense taken in the written statement is that as per provisions in the Financial Rule vide Rule 18.12 read with Rule 18.13 (A) (1), all authority which are competent to sanction – revision of pay or the grant of concessions to Government employees should bear in mind that retrospective effect should not be given to the financial sanction, except in exceptional circumstances, without the special approval of the competent authority. Further the plea taken is that the petitioners were not entitled for regularization In my opinion, both these pleas would be covered by the principle behind Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. Admittedly these pleas were available to the respondents when the original writ petition was decided. In the circumstances, the reason now sought to be forwarded for declining the consequential relief cannot be sustained in view of the earlier decision by this Court extracted above. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to compute and pay the arrears to the petitioners for the period from 1.2.1996 till the date of their regularization within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. March 20, 2009 ( AJAY TEWARI ) ashish JUDGE