Pd r m56m 11 4 r WP Nol4394 of2010 61 r In theHighCourt ofPunjab andHaryana at Date ofdecisionl 11052011 111CWP No 14394of2010 MajorSinghKhatkarandothersVs State8fPunjab and others 121CWP No188 of2011 m SinghDhillon andothers Vs StateofPunjab and others Q 0 031CWP N012748 of2010 0 I SahahGuptaand othersVs StateofPunjab and others C5 41 CWP Nol9490 of2010 I Smtantosh GuptaandothersVs StateofPunjaband another Z 51CWPNo7961 of2010 2 C4 ChamanLal SethiandothersVs StateofPunjab andanother I 61 CWP No 18486of2010 C Z Amar Nath Bhutani and othersVs StateofPunjaband others 00 471 CWP No8846 of2010 7 ChanderKanta andothers Vs StateofPunjaband another Z A81 CWP N019964of2010 Om Kidar Nath Sharmaand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 91 CWP No19969 of2010 t Ajit Singhand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 101 CWP No2457 of2011 W Sat Pal Vs The StateofPunjaband others 6111CWP No 4647 of2011 1 Ajit Singhand others Vs StateofPunjaband another Radhika 2014.07.01 14: 38 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 57 4LWPNol4394 of2010 2 r 121CWP NoA166 of2011 GurcharanSinghBedi Vs StateofPunjaband others x131 CWP No 4123 of2011 GurcharanSinghand others Vs StateofPunjaband another t141 CWP No 2975 of2011 RameshKumari Vs StateofPunjab andanother m 151CWP No2886of2011 MangalSinghandothersVs Stateof Punjab andanother 0 C3 161 CWP NoA305 of2011 C Charanjit SinghVs StateofPunjab andothers 4 Z CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI 1 Q Present1 Mr RK Arora MrYM BhagirathMrSameer Sachdeva Ms er I Alka Chatrath MrNikas Chatrath MrAmrik SinghMr KPS Sandhu MrTribhawan SinglaMrGS Bal Mr Harinder l ShannaMrK Arora Mrnil ChopraMrSunnySinglaand Z MrDeepakGuptaAdvocates for the 1 C10 MrPuneet GuptaAddl AdvocateGeneral Punjabwith MsCharu Tuli Senior DAG Punjabfor the va Z 5 PERMOD KOHLI J ll Controversy in all thesewrit petitions1S COlnmon based upon identicalfactsand same questionoflaw The petitioners are claimingbeneflt of the revised pay scales r with effect from 1906971 the date when the similarly situated govemmentemployees were held entitled to the revised pay scales on completion of five years of service These petitioners were denied bene8t vmm Radhika 2014.07.01 14: 38 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 58 14 itWP Nol4394 of2010 39 later all of them were the benefit with effect from 1607975 Thiscontroversyearlier came up before this Court in CWP No2208 of 1989 Lekh Raj Khera and others Vse State of Punjaband anotherlThis writ petition was allowedvide judgment dated24032009 withthefollowing directionsle In view of the abovelegaland factualposition 1 this succeedspartially are tr directed to extendthebenefitofthe Payrevision in 0 Ca9 case of we ll 1971 instead of C5 1671975 They are Olrtherdirectedto fix 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 Theprocessof fixation of pay be within I t a period of four months from the date certified Z copyof this orderis servedupon the competent CO The benefitbe releasedin e2 Z favour of the petitionerswithin a periodof two monthsthereafter 24032009 6PERMODKOHLII JUDGE 1 It is common case of the partiesthat all the petitioners are 4eee governedby the directions contained in Lekh Raj Kheras case 6supra noticed hereinabove However leamed counsel appearingfor the Statee has expressedreservationin regardto grantof relief to these writ petitionersparticularlythose who approached the Court aRer a long Radhika 2014.07.01 14: 38 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 59 twPNo4394 of2010 41 delayfor seekingthe relief As a matter of fact all the petitioners are seeking ofLekh RajKheras case for their beneflts In view ofthe objection raisedbythe on thequestionofdelaythesewrit petitions were heardthough all the writ petitionsare covered by the renderedin Lekh Raj Kheras case 1 The Statehasrelied upon vanous judgments which are noticed hereunder 0 C In the case of RegionalManager APe SRTC Vse N C5 and others 20089 1 Supreme CourtCases 210 Hone I c the SupremeCourt declined the prayer for of dailywagers Z from the date of their initial engagementIll the year 1986 in the writ petitionfiled in the year 1999 on the ground of delayand laches though I theywere entitledto such reliefunderan ofthe Court L Z In the case of Nadia Dlstt PrimarySchool Council and 0 another Vse Sristidhar Biswas and others 2007912 Supreme Court 4t 7 Cases 779 the Court declinedthereliefon thegroundofdelayin thematter Z of when the writ petition was filed aRer a periodof nine years CL The relevant observationsare contained in paragraph11 of thejudgment aforesaidwhich are asunder1 11In thepresentcasethepanelwas prepared ln 4e 1980 and the petitionersapproachedthe court 111 1989 aRer the decision 111 Dibakar Pal Such persons should not be givenany beneSt by the court when theyallowed more than nine years to Radhika 2014.07.01 14: 38 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 60 e WP No14394 of2010 659 e elapse Delay 1S very in matters of reliefandcourt 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 CoalfleldsLimited VseDugalKumar 20089 14 r Court Cases 295 a writ petition was filed after a decadeclaiming 0 C1 thebenefit of additionalquantity of coal allottedto thecompany 10years I C5 beforethe date of filingof the writ petitionIt has been held that inordinate delayon thepartof the petitioner in makingthe motion for a writ is an c Z adequate groundfor re8isingto exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India I In the case of SeSeBalu and another vse State of Kerala and others 2009 2 SupremeCourt Cases 479 Honble the Supreme Court Z c made folIowingobservations to denythe relief when there is inordinate QO er delayl 7 Z 44 17 It is also wellesettledprincipleof law that Qm e delaydefeatsequity The Governmentorder was 1 issued on 152002 The appellantsdid not 81e any writ applicationquestioningthe legalityand 44eme validitythereof Onlyafter the writ petitions ftled by others were allowed and the State of Kerala preferredan appealthereagainstthey impleaded themselves as partyespondentsIt is now a trite m l n Radhika 2014.07.01 14: 38 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 61 1 CWP No14394 of2010 661 e law that where the writ petitioner the HighCourt afler a longdelayreliefs prayedfor may bedenied to them on theground of delayand laches of the fact theyare similarly situatedto the other candidateswho obtain the bene8t It is thus not possible for j US to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or r the Commission to appointthe appellants at this 0 C0 stage In NDMC v Pan Singhthis Court heldl I 0 SCC p283para 161 I In the case of Shiv Dass Vse Union of India 8nd others Z 200799 Supreme Court cases 274 the writ petitioner was denied the 2 disabilitypensionin the year 1983 He filed a writ petitionin the High C Court in the year 2005 This writ petition was dismissedbythe HighCourt I the question of delayand laches The Honble Supreme Court Z while the matter to the High Court made the following m observations 7 Z 10 In the case of pensionthe cause of action Qw actuallycontinues from month to month That however cannot be a groundto overlook delayin filingthe petition It would dependuponthe fact V of each case If petition1S filed beyonda reasonable period say three years normallythe Court would rejectthe same or restrict the relief which could be grantedto a reasonableperiodof 4 Radhika 2014.07.01 14: 38 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 62 ed CWPNo14394 of2010 79 aboutthreeyears The HighCourt did not examine whether on merit the appellanthad a case If on rneritsit would have foundthat therewas no scope for interference it would have dismissed the writ petition on that score alone 33 Learned counsel appearingfor the have also 1 referredtvarious of this Court and also the government instructionsin regardto ofthe HighCourt 0 0 The StateofPunjab issued instructionsdated172002 to all the Financial I t5 Commissioners thePrincipal Secretariesand the AdministrativeSecretaries I to the GovernmentofPunjabThe instructionsare as underl Z O Wherever the rightsof the partieshave been settledby a judgment of the Court the State has 0 takenall remediesavailable to it in law againstthat I r judgment even uptothe highestcourt of the land Z and the judgmenthas attained finality then the m Statemust acceptthejudgmentand implement it in w Z its true spiritand command There is implicit obligation on the part of the State to grant same relief to other membersof the cadre whose claim was basedupn identical facts and pointoflaw iil The State Government shall as expeditiously 4ew as possiblein any case not later than four months react and respondto a legal servedupon it by any of its employees in redressal 1 Radhika 2014.07.01 14: 38 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document e I nn nn 63 1 0 P t PCWPNo4394 of2010 89 e of his of relief which has been to his similarlysituated lll lrtherance to the of the Court Unless for reasons to be indicated in the replythe State feels to denysuch relief Needless to pointout that denial must neitherbe evasivenor intendedto circumvent the ordersofthe Court 1 iio In the event such an employee is compelled 0 0 to approach the court of law whereupon the court I t5 awardsinterestandlor costs while allowingsuch a I petitionthen the incurred bythe State Z including the costslinterestpaidin furtheranceto the ordersofthe Court should be recovered from r theerringofficer6sl I iv The concemedquartersofthe Governmentare Z expected to work out the details lIl 81rtheranceto OO the above directions and issue pervasivebut aeo Z definite instructionsto all its forthwith tl to ensure compliance In the case of State of Rarnataka Sc Orse Vse Ce Lalitha 4e 200692 SCC 747 Honble the Supreme Court while considering theright ofsimilarlysituatedpersons observedas underl 18 Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulatesthat all persons 1 Radhika 2014.07.01 14: 38 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 64 CWP Nol4394 of2010 99 C situatedshouldbetreatedsimilarlyOnly because one person has the court that would not mean that persons similarlysituated shouldbe treateddifferentlyee 33 I haveheardtheleamed counsel for theparties at length The petitioners are similarly situatedas the writ lll a tm Lekh Raj Kheras case supra9 However it is a fact that these writ 1Z have this Court aRer the judgment of Lekh Raj 0 0 Kherascase for thesimilarrelief The Statewhile thattheyare I 9 situated resistedtheir claim onlyon the groundof delayin filing I the writ petitionsThe judgment in Lekh Raj Kheras case has attained Z finalityand the State has the same vide its circular dated 18082010issuedbythe District Education Officer 6SE9Gurdaspur to ail e the Masters etc The relevant instructions for its I are as underl Z As per letter under reference directions were CO issued to draw the arrears of the concerned with W2 Z regardto grantofpayscale from 1111971 instead of 1671975 in terms of the reportof the Kothari Commissionwithin a periodof 15 daysNow Civil Writ Petition No806212010has also been disposed 4eem of by the Court in terms of the decision in Lekh Raj Kheras case Therefore if any petitionerof this writ petitionis pertainingto your school the due benefit be given to him within 10 days and Radhika 2014.07.01 14: 38 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 65 W l e2WPNo14394 of2010 610 be sent to this office While releasing to the the Head of the School will ensure that the benefit has been correctly glven tothepetitioner as per instructionslrulesIf due to the of the school Head any remaineddeprivedfor payment the 1 concernedSchoolHead will be for the same 0 C0 From the above circular it is established that the State has I CD the judgment qua writ petitioners in Lekh Raj Kheras case I Instnlctionsdated 17772002referredto above clearlydepictsGovernments Z policyto implement the attainingfinalitynot only qua the writ 2 but also in respectto all non as well who are C I similarly situatedand may be enthledto similar relief Theseicns C0 are general in nature and applyin all such cases wherever the judgment Z against the State has attained finality Despitethese instructions having 0 beenissued in the year 2002 the Stateis actingin derogationthereofand 7 Z similarly situatedpersonsare left with no other optionbut to approach this Ll Court time and again This has the effect of this Court with unnecessary litigationand chockingthe justicedeliverysystemIt may also be noticed that not onlythe Governmentitselfhas decided to implementthe Cme judgmentin respectto aIl similarlysimated persons a Division Bench of this Court also issued generaldirections in this regard 111the case of Satbir SinghVse State of Haryana 2002 Service Cases Today 354 The relevant directionsare contained in 19 of this judgmentwhich Radhika 2014.07.01 14: 38 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 66 mW 1 CWPNol4394 of2010 119 r areas under 19 Be that as it may in the aforee referred premiseswe still feel that it is the boundendutyof the Court to issue the following directionsto the Statein the largerpublicinterest andfor properadministrationofjusticel 1 6o Wherever the rightsof the partieshave been 1 settledbya of the Court the State has 0 0 takenall remediesavailableto it in law against that I C5 judgment even uptothe highestcourt of the land I and the judgment has attained finalitythen the Z Statemust acceptthejudgment and implement it in 2 Q its true spiritand command There is implicit I obligation on the part of the State to grant same t relief to other membersof the cadre whose claim Z was basedupon identical facts andpointoflaw rlo io The StateGovernmentshall as W2 Z as possiblein any case not later than four months react and respondto a legal 1 served upon it by any of its employees in redressal of his of relief which has been grantedto his similarlysituated in 61rtheranceto thejudgmentof the Court Unless for reasons to be indicated in the reply the State feels compelledto denysuch relief Needless to Radhika 2014.07.01 14: 38 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 67 d 0 CWP N014394 of2010 6121 4 pointout that denial must neither be evasive nor intendedto circumvent the ordersofthe Court iii9 In the event such an employee is compelled to approach the court of law whereupon the court awardsinterestandlorcosts while allowingsuch a thenthe incurredbytheState 1 including the costslinterestpaidin furtheranceto theordersof the Court should be recovered from 0 0 theerringofficer I 0 iv The concernedquartersof the Governmentare I expectedto work out the details in Rlrtheranceto Z the above directions and issue pervasivebut definite instructionsto all its forthwith Ct to ensure compliance I r It is a matter ofconcernthat the abovedirectionsissuedbythis Z Court as far back as in theyear 2002 are beingtlouted with impunityThe oo State has failed to discharge its obligationto grant relief to similarly 7 Z situatedpersons at its own level Under such circumstances it cannot be Om permitted to pleaddelayand lacheswherethe Stateitself is responsible for unnecessary litigationwhich could be conveniently 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 afler 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 0491n4 em ei Radhika 2014.07.01 14: 38 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document m54Ww4 1 68 a r CWP N014394 of2010 139 1 2 r similarrelief as in LekhRaj Kheras case andthe State has chosen not to prefer anyappealagainst The of relxation of the salar lIl fact givesa cause of action to the govemmentemployee as every month he looses some amountfrom hissalaryor retiralbenefitson account of wrong fixation of salary Thus the doctrineof delayand laches cannot be 1 to be invoked as thumbrule in every case The cited onbehalfofthe Statemostlypertained to matters seniorityand 0 C0 policymatters In Ce Lalithas case supra9Honble the Supreme Court I 9 has clearlyheld that similarlysituatedpersons should not be treated I Similarly111 Shiv Dasss case cited on behalf of the Z Honble the SupremeCourt has againclearlyheld that 111 2 casesofpension at themost reliefcouldbe restrictedto threeyears I A Full Bench of this Court in the case of SarojKumari and others vs The state of Punjaband others 1998 51 Services Law Z Reporter266 have examined the questionof reefixation in the context of r delayin the Court wherein it hasbeenheld as under 2 Z 9 Leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted m that in case of wrong flxation of pay to which an employee may be entitled under the relevant rules instructions or even on account of a judgment 4ewv there is no questionof any limitation as the wrong paymentof salaryevery month lS a continuing wrongagainsthim which givesnse to recurring cause of action each time he is paid salarywhich is Radhika 2014.07.01 14: 38 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 69 e 3WP Nol4394of2010 149 r not to the relevant rules instructions or a judgmentthe employees in such a case has a rightto ask for a direction to the State Govemmentor to the employerto fix the pay correctly rightfromdayone in accordancewith the relevantrules and instructions However while 1 the relief of arrears of pay etc the same can be confined to threeyears and two months 0 C which is the periodof limitation providedfor 0 getting a relief of realisationof arrears in a civil I suit Z 14 For the foregoing reasons we are of the view 2 that in cases whereonlyflxation of pay 4r to the relevant ruleslinstructions or a judgment 1S I t prayedfor thewrit petitioncannot be dismissedat Z the thresholdon thegroundof delayandlachesbut the paymentof arrears can be restricted to a ae Z reasonableperiod Three years and two months ll would be considereda reasonableperiodas that is the periodfor which a person Call ask for the paymentof arrears before a Civil Court C The cause of thepetitioners is a recurringcause Thus the ratio of the judgmentof the Full Bench is applicable on all four corners to the factsof this case Petitionersrightcannot be defeatedmerelyon account of delayand laches thoughthe relief for arrears can be restrictedto a period 1 Radhika 2014.07.01 14: 38 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 70 1 CWPNol4394 of2010 6159 0 rPP ofthreeyears as observedby Honble the Court and Full Bench of thisCourt referredto hereinabove In view of theabovecircumstancesthesepetitions are allowed 111termsofthe judgment in Lekh RajKheras case However the claim for arrears lS restrictedto threeyearspreceding thefilingof the writ petitions No costs 1 It is Slrther directedthat all similarlysituated government C5 may be grantedthe relief in terms of Lekh Raj Kheras case 0 0 thoughrestricting claim of arrears to threeyears It would be prudentand I C9 for the Cvemment to issue a circularlnotificationin this regard as early as possible to preventlrtherlitigation on thisquestion Z A copy of this orderbe placed on the file of otherconnected 2 writ petitions Ct 6 I 4m L 1052011 PERMOD KOHLI9 Z BLS JUDGE e 0 e 1e m Note Whether to be referredto theReporter2YES Z CL 53 1 G C e50 6 S 4 Radhika 2014.07.01 14: 38 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document