CWP No. 16653 of 2009 ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 16653 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 27th April, 2010. Varinder Kumar & Ors. Petitioners through Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Anr. Respondents through Mr. B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioners are employees of the Printing and Stationery Department, Government of Punjab. They seek quashing of the letter dated 23.07.2009 [Annexure P-9] to the extent it says that their pay is to be fixed w.e.f. 1.1.1986, as earlier directed by this Court, “for the purposes of retiral benefits only and no arrears of the same are payable”. [2]. In the first round of litigation, the petitioners had approached this Court in CWP No. 15214 of 1998 which was allowed by a consent order dated 16.5.2008 [Annexure P-2], in terms of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. V Bhupinder Singh & Ors., 2004[2] SCT, 409 [followed by this Court in Gur Kirpal Singh & Ors. V State of Punjab & Ors. Decided on 21.4.2006] [Annexure P-6]. [3]. In State of Punjab v Bhupinder Singh, Civil Appeal CWP No. 16653 of 2009 ::-2-:: No. 4432 of 1999, the State of Punjab's appeal was allowed in part and while setting aside the directions issued by this Court regarding payment of consequential arrears of pay, it was ruled that:- “In the case of Ram Murti [supra] the petitioners who were employees of Punjab Roadways prayed for direction to grant them revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986 instead of 3.11.1989. It was held that on 3.11.1988 the scales stood revised, and consequently, the appellants were entitled to revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986, notionally and they were not to be paid the arrears of the difference of pay scales but they would be entitled to all consequential benefits. In our view, learned advocate for the appellants is right in his submission that the facts of the present case are covered by the judgment of the High Court in the case of Ram Murti [supra] Special Leave Petition against which has been dismissed. Accordingly, we hold that the respondents herein would be entitled to revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986, notionally for calculation of retiral benefits but they will not be paid arrears of the difference in the pay scales from the date, as claimed”. [4]. It may be seen that the view taken by this Court in Ram Murti & Ors. V State of Punjab & Ors., decided on 13.2.1996 against which Special Leave Petition was dismissed, was principally approved by the Apex Court. In Ram Murti's case [supra] a Division Bench of this Court had issued the following directions:- “In view of the pleadings of the parties and the settled proposition of law on the basis of judgments relied upon by the petitioners, the present petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioners shall be deemed to have been granted the revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986 instead of 3.11.1989. However, they shall not be paid the CWP No. 16653 of 2009 ::-3-:: arrears of the difference of pay scales, but will be entitled to all other consequential benefits”. [5]. It, thus, emerges in no uncertain terms that the directions issued by this Court to the effect that the employees of the Transport Department, Printing and Stationery Department, to which the petitioners belong, were found entitled to the revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986 instead of 3.11.1989 but they were not to be paid the arrears of difference in pay. However, they were held entitled to other consequential benefits. In other words, the writ petitioners were entitled for notional pay fixation but not the resultant arrears. [6]. The respondents, however, have declined to fix the pay of the petitioners notionally without paying them arrears on the plea that in Bhupinder Singh's case [supra], the Hon'ble Supreme Court while allowing the State's appeal in part held that the respondents therein would be entitled to the revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986 “only for the purposes of retiral benefits.......”. According to the respondents, the benefit of notional pay fixation also can be granted to the employees like the petitioners, only after their retirement and not while they are in service. This is what has been communicated to the petitioners vide the impugned orders. [7]. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the decisions cited above, I am of the considered view that the observations in Bhupinder Singh's case [supra] to the effect that the employees therein would be entitled to revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986 notionally for calculation of retiral benefits, are in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case and can not be construed to mean that in all such like cases the notional CWP No. 16653 of 2009 ::-4-:: pay fixation shall take place only after retirement of the employee concerned. Had it been the import of the decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court would not have approved the view taken by this Court in Ram Murti's case [supra] whereby it was categorically directed that though arrears of difference of pay scales shall not be paid to the employees but they shall be entitled to other consequential benefits. It means that wherever the employees have retired from service, their pay would be re-fixed w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and retiral benefits shall also be revised accordingly, but without paying the arrears of difference in pay w.e.f. 1.1.1986. However, in those cases where the employees are still in service, the fruits of a court decision in their favour which has already attained finality can not be withheld or postponed to await their retirement[s]. They would, therefore, be entitled to fixation of their pay notionally from 1.1.1986 onwards but without paying any arrears for the difference of pay as directed by this Court in Ram Murti's case [supra] and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhupinder Singh's case [supra]. [8]. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders are quashed and the respondents are directed to re-fix the petitioners' pay, in accordance with the decisions cited above, within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. [9]. Dasti. April 27, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE