C.W.P No. 2947 of 1991 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 2947 of 1991 Date of decision : December 06, 2010 Radha Krishan Sharma, ...... Petitioner, v. state of Haryana and another, ...... Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Jindal, DAG Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the benefit of 13th month pay which was given to all the police personnel in lieu of the fact that they had to work on gazetted holidays etc. This pay was given to the petitioner except for the period when he was working with respondent No.2 viz. 10.10.1983 to 28.2.1987. As per the unrebutted case of the petitioner, C.W.P No. 2947 of 1991 ::2:: his consent was not sought before deputing him to respondent No.2. The stand of respondent No.2 is that the provision of giving 13th month salary to police personnel on deputation was accepted by respondent No.2 only w.e.f 1.4.1987 and, thus, for the period prior thereto, the same could not be granted to the petitioner. Reliance has been placed on the fact that other personnel who had earlier served the respondent- Board similarly as the petitioner have not been granted the said benefit. Counsel for respondent No.1 states that even from the period 1.4.1987, sanction of the Finance Department had been obtained. He has also relied upon condition No. (i) of the memo. dated 14.8.1980 (Annexure P-2) which is to the following effect :- “ (i) The sanction already issued by the Government for the grant of one month's extra salary will be applicable to all Constables/Head Constables who are on deputation to other departments of Haryana Government, other State Govts. and Central Govt. subject to the condition that the borrowing Govt. agree to this extra expenditure.” In my opinion, it cannot be said that respondent No.2 is either a department of the Government of Haryana or a State Government or a Central Government. Thus, the limitation prescribed by the above condition cannot be imposed on the right of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the claim of the petitioner has to be allowed. There is, however, one more aspect of the matter. In the written statement, it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner represented in this regard for the first time only in 1990 and that the averment in the writ petition that he had moved a representation on 2.4.1984 is incorrect. No replication has been filed to this averment in the written statement. Thus, the question which arises is whether this writ petition is barred by laches. C.W.P No. 2947 of 1991 ::3:: In my considered opinion, even though there may be some delay on the part of the petitioner yet his case cannot be refused on this ground. However, equities can be balanced by directing that no interest would be payable till 1990 and interest would be leviable on the arrears so worked out @ 6% p.a w.e.f 1.7.1990 till the date of payment. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) December 06, 2010. JUDGE `kk'