HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. : 140 of 2005. Decided on: 18.8.2009. Ravinder Singh Dhadwal and another ……… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioners: M/s Shivank Singh Panta, Surender Sharma & Paresh Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents: M/s R.M. Bisht, Rajesh Mandhotra and Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate Generals. Per Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral): The petitioners had filed writ petition No.457 of 1986 in which they had claimed the following, amongst other, reliefs: “i) That the petitioners may be held entitled to the revised pay scale of 700- 1200 equivalent to that of Instructors of Polytechnics and Junior Engineers in HPPWD w.e.f. 1-1-78. ii) That the petitioners may be held entitled to special pay of Rs.50/- p.m. as given to the Instructors in Polytechnics because of their being in Education department. _________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - iii) The petitioners may be held entitled to the grant of ADA & TA w.e.f. 1.2.68 as given to other categories of teachers working in education department. iv) The petitioners may be held entitled to practical allowance as given to other science teachers in schools w.e.f. 1.4.1985. v) The petitioners may be awarded a reasonable rate of interest on arrears due & payable to them. vi) That the respondents may be directed to promote the petitioners to the next promotional posts of Incharge Technical which are lying vacant for the last 8 years and against which some non technical hands are working & drawing their salaries.” The grievance of the petitioners was that they have been engaged as Technical Instructors in the Department of Education in the State of Himachal Pradesh. According to the petitioners, initially their scale of pay was fixed by taking it to be equivalent to the post of Sectional Officer, PWD (later designated as Junior Engineer) and Instructors in the Polytechnics. According to the petitioners, in 1978 the State discriminated between these three categories and the category of the petitioners was denied the benefit of higher pay scale of Rs.700-1200/- which was granted to the Sectional Officers and Instructors in Polytechnics, but the petitioners were only granted pay scale of Rs.570-1080/-. On the formation of the State Administrative Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal. During the course of hearing of the Original Application before the Tribunal, as is apparent from the - 3 - order of the Tribunal, the petitioners gave up all other reliefs and only pressed the following two reliefs: “1) That petitioners may be held entitled to the grant of ADA & TA w.e.f. 1.2.68 as given to other categories of teachers working in Education Department and 2) That the respondents may be directed to promote the petitioners to the next promotional posts of Incharge Technical which are lying vacant for the last 18 years and against which some non- technical hands are working and drawing their salaries.” The Tribunal held that the petitioners were not entitled to relief No.1 and in respect of relief No.2, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicants for promotion and in case the applicants were found eligible and such posts are lying vacant, they may be promoted against the same. This order was passed by the Tribunal on 23.6.2000. The petitioners did not challenge the order of the Tribunal but filed a contempt petition, which was numbered as Contempt Petition No.10 of 2002. This contempt petition was treated as an execution petition and a direction was given by the Tribunal on 21.10.2003 to the Principal Secretary (Education), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, to give hearing, in person, to the petitioners and to consider their case. Thereafter, the Principal Secretary (Education) heard the petitioners in person on 24.11.2003. By that time, Shri Ravinder Singh, one of the petitioners, had already retired on 30.6.1997. The other petitioner Subhash Chand had been promoted to the post of Technical Incharge vide order dated 4.7.2002. After hearing the petitioners, the Principal Secretary - 4 - rejected the representation on 29.1.2004. Thereafter, this writ petition was filed on 3.3.2005, in which the petitioners claimed the following reliefs: “i) That the impugned judgment i.e. Annexure-PO, dated 23.6.2000 may be quashed and set aside to the extent whereby the relief No.(i) has been dis- allowed by the ld. H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by applying the principle of severability; ii) That the impugned Annexure-PQ, dated 29.1.2004 may also be quashed and set aside iii) That the respondents may be directed to release the pay scale of Rs.700-1200 to the petitioners w.e.f. 1.1.1978 and subsequent revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and 1.1.1996; iv) That the respondents may be directed to release special pay of Rs.50/- per month to the petitioners as granted to Instructors working in Polytechnics w.e.f. 1.2.1968; v) That the petitioners may also be held entitled to the grant of ADA and TA w.e.f. 1.2.1968 as given to similarly situated teachers teaching in Education Department; vi) That the respondents may be directed to pay practical allowance to the petitioners at par with other Science Teachers in Schools w.e.f. 1.4.1985;” It is obvious that the petitioners cannot now be permitted to claim the reliefs which they had given up before the Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for the grant of scale of Rs.700-1200/- or for the grant of special pay or for practical allowance. These prayers were specifically made before the Tribunal and which were not pressed. Five years after the Tribunal passed the order, the petitioners cannot be permitted to rake up this matter in the writ proceedings when the - 5 - Tribunal had specifically recorded that the petitioners pressed only two reliefs. In respect of relief No.1, which was rejected, the petitioners did not file any writ petition within the reasonable time thereafter and the writ petition filed in 2005 is highly belated. As far as the consideration of the representation is concerned, the same has been considered and one of the petitioners promoted after the order of the Tribunal. We, therefore, find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. (V.K. Ahuja), August 18, 2009. Judge. (TILAK)