IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1126 of 2001 Decided on: May 05, 2008. Birbal Singh …..Petitioner. VERSUS State of H.P. & Anr. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner: Mr K.D.Sood & Mr.Rajnish K. Lall, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy A.G. Deepak Gupta, Judge (Oral). The writ petitioner filed the Original Application before the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal claiming equal pay for equal work. The petitioner was appointed as Surveyor in the pre revised scale of Rs.75-200 whereas other Surveyors in the Department were working in the scale of Rs.100-300. One Shri Harbans Lal, who had been appointed in the scale of Rs.75-200 was granted the scale of Rs.100-300. After the retirement of Shri Harbans Lal, the petitioner also represented praying that he may also be granted the same scale. The first representation made by the petitioner was rejected on 16.12.1970. Another representation was rejected on 30.10.1976. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… Representation made by the petitioner for review was also rejected on 22.7.1977. In the year 1980, the petitioner was informed that another representation filed by him was still under consideration. The petitioner filed Original Application No.339 of 1988 before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal held that the petitioner is entitled to equal pay for equal work and was, therefore, entitled to draw the pay in the regular pay scale of Rs.100-300 as revised from time to time from the date of his initial appointment. However, in respect of the arrears, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that in view of the law of limitation, the petitioner could not be granted arrears prior to three years before the filing of the Original Application. 2. We have heard Shri K.D.Sood and Shri Rajnish K. Lall, Advocates, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent. On behalf of the petitioner, it is urged that the petitioner was representing time and again right from the year 1970 that he should be granted pay scale of Rs.100-300. Great reliance has been placed on the communication made in the year 1980 vide which the petitioner was informed that the matter was still under consideration of the Government. Prior to 1980 there are other communications sent by the concerned authorities wherein the case of the petitioner for grant of pay scale of Rs.100-300 has specifically been rejected. The petitioner despite specific rejection of his case did not approach the Court and kept on submitting the representations. These repeated representations would not entitle the petitioner for arrears of pay which …3… otherwise under the law of limitation have admittedly become time barred. The Tribunal has entertained the petition despite the rejection of the earlier representations on the ground that the grievance of the petitioner arises out of a continuous cause of action but has only limited the relief part to three years prior to filing of the petition. We find no error in the order of the learned Tribunal. 3. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is rejected. No costs. ( Deepak Gupta ),J. May 05, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ),J. (soni)