33 n1144 44 41 r 5J e4 vlt ee r r CWP Nol4394 of2010 619 In theHighCourt ofPunjabandHaryana at Chandigarh Dateofdecision11052011 1I CWP No14394 of2010 MajorSinghKhatkarandothersVs StateofPunjab and others 21CWP NoA188of2011 r m SinghDhillon andothersVs StateofPunjab and others r 0 8ICWP Nol2748 of2010 C0 SahahGuptaand othersVs StateofPunjab and others C9 41 CWP Nol9490 of2010 f4 SmtSantoshGuptaand others Vs StateofPunjab and another Z A51CWPN017961 of2010 2 ChamanLal Sethiand others Vs StateofPunjab and another I f61CWP Nol8486 of2010 Z Amar NatlBhutani andothersVs Stateof Punjab and others 01 t71 CWP No 18846of2010 W7 ChanderKanta and others Vs StateofPunjabandanother Z A81CWP N019964 of2010 Qm Kidar Nath Sharmaand others Vs StateofPunjab and another 91 CWP No 19969of2010 t Ajit Singhand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 101 CWP No 2457 of2011 C Sat Pal Vs The StateofPunjaband others Olll CWP NoA647 of 2011 1 Ajit Singhand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 1e1144U44 12 4 8 Uweee Batra Amit 2014.07.01 16: 37 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 34 e 4 W1 1041 4 n9O e9 a CWP Nol4394 of2010 29 e l121CWP NoA166 of2011 GurcharanSinghBedi Vs StateofPunjaband others K131CWP No 4123 of2011 GurcharanSinghand others Vs StateofPUnjaband another 141 CWP N02975 of2011 RameshKumari Vs StateofPunjab andanother m 151 CWP No886 of2011 MangalSinghand others Vs Stateof Punjaband another 0 C 161 CWP NoA305 of2011 I C5 SinghVs StateofPunjab and others I Z CORAM1 HONBLE MR JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI r4 Present Mr RK Arora MrYM Bhagirath MrSameer Sachdeva Ms Alka Chatrath MrNikas Chatrath MrAmrik SinghMr KPS Sandhu Mrrribhawan SinglaMrGS Bal Mr Harinder t3 Sharma MrSK Arora MrAnil ChopraMrunny Singlaand Z MrDeepakGuptaAdvocates for thepetitioners C0 MrPuneet GuptaAddl Advocate General Punjabwith MsCharu Tuli Senior DAG Punjabfor the vm Z PERMOD KOHLI J Clm Controversyin all thesewrit petitionsls common based upon identical factsand same questionof law The petitioners are claimingbenefit of the revised pay scales e With effect from 19061971 the date when the similarly situated govemment were held entitled to the revised pay scales on completionof five yearsof service Thesepetitioners were denied benefit 114604414Stoam m Batra Amit 2014.07.01 16: 37 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 35 O4 Io s 6 n 69eII0 441141 4Jl O e I CWP Nol4394 of2010 3 later all of them weres grantedthe benefit with effect from 1671975 This controversyearlier came up before this Curt in CWP No2208 of 1989 6LekhRaj Khera and others Vse State of Punjab and anotherl This writ petitionwas allowed vide judgmentdated24032009 withthefollowing directionsl In view of the abovelegaland factualposition m this petitionsucceedspar8ally are directedto extendthebenefltof thePayrevision in 0 0 case of wef 1111971 instead of C5 163975 Theyare furtherdirectedto fix thepay I scale of the such of the petitionerswhose c Z unrevisedpay fallsbetween two stagesin the new r2 time scale in the revised scale in the next stage 0 Theprocessof Sxationof pay be within Z Cm3 a periodof four months from the date certified Z C1 copyof this order is servedupon the competent The benefitbe releasedin a Z favour of the petitioners within a periodof two tl rnonthsthereafter 1 24032009 6PERMODKOHLI JUDGE 1 It is common case of the paniesthat all the petitioners are Lme govemedby the directions contained in Lekh Raj Kheras case Csupra noticed hereove However leamed counsel appearingfor the Statee has reservationin regardto grantof relief to these writ petitionersparticularly those who approached the Court aRer a long 0eVnb4U464a4 WAIm Wb eV4 Batra Amit 2014.07.01 16: 37 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 36 4eme I S 1144 a 1e 9 I n e n V4 Je e CWP N014394 of2010 49 e delayfor seekingthe relief As a matter of fact all the petitioners are of thejudgmentof Lekh Raj Kheras case for their beneflts In view ofthe objection raisedby the 1 onthe of delaythesewrit petitions were heardthoughprindpally all the writ petitions are coveredby the renderedin Lekh Raj Kheras case 1 The Statehas relied upon vanous which are noticed Q4 hereunder 0 U In the case of RegionalManager AeP SRTC Vse Ne C3 and others 20089 1 Supreme Court Cases 210 Honble I the Supreme Court declined the prayer for of dailywagers Z from the date of their initial in the year 1986 in the writ flled in the year 1999 on theground of delayand laches though I they were entitledto such reliefunder an ofthe Coun 3 Z In the case of Nadia Distte Primary School CouncU and anotherVs Sristidhar Biswas and others 620079 12 Supreme Court ClO Cases779 the Court declinedthe reliefon theground of delayin the matter m0 Z of whenthewrit petition was Sled a8er a periodof nineyears Il Therelevant observationsare contained in paragraph11 of the judgment which are asunderl llIn thepresentcase the panelwas prepared 111 e00 1980 and the petitioners approached the court Ul 1989 after the decision in Dibakar Pal Such personsshould not be givenany benefit by the court when theyallowed more than nine years to 9 Su ueouI l 046 Batra Amit 2014.07.01 16: 37 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 37 W494 A4 W I esn1n e M me CWPNol4394 of2010 59 elapse Delay is very significantin matters of granting reliefand court cannot come to the rescue of the personswho are not vignantof their rigMs1 ThereSore the Vlew taken by the High Court the delayof nine years cannot be countenanced 1 In Eastern Coalfds Lhted Vs DugalKumar 2008914 r Court Cases 295 a writ petition was filed aftera decadeclaiming 0 C40 the benefit of additional of coal allottedto thecompany 10 years I C9 beforethe dateof filingof the writ petitionIt hasbeenheld that inordinate I delayorhe partof the petitioner in makingthe rnotion for a writ is an Z groundfor refusingto exercise discretion under Ale 226 of the ConstitutionofIndia I In the case of SS Balu and another vse State of Kerala and others 200992 SupremeCourt Cases 479 Honble the Supreme Court Z made followingobservationsto denythe relief when there is inordinate m delayl Iav Z 44 17 It is also wellsettled principleof law that Om delaydefeatsequity The Governmentorder was issued on 151m2002 The appellantsdid not file anywrit applicationquestioningthe legalityand Vwe validitythereof Onlyafler the writ petitionsfiled by others were allowed and the State of Kerala preferred an appeal theyimpleaded themselves as It is now a trite eeeA4IlWe4496401Old14IeeIvalb Batra Amit 2014.07.01 16: 37 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 38 9 eee Ie4 AeneO 1 4 0 44C05beA e 10464 A 45a 1 CWP N014394 of 2010 69 law that where the writ petitionerapproaches the HighCourt a8er a longdelayreliefs prayedfor maybe denied to them on the groundof delayand laches of the fact theyare similarly situated to the other candidateswho obtain the benefit It is thus not possible for e US to issue any direction to the Stateof Kerala or Q the Commission to appointthe appellants at this 0 0 stage In NDMC v Pan Singhthis Court heldl I Ca9 SCC p283para169 In the case of Shiv Dass Vse Union of India iind others Z 200719 SupremeCourt cases 274 the writ petitionerwas denied the disabilitypensionin the year 1983 He Oled a writ petitionin the High r Court in theyear 2005 This writ petitionwas dismissedbythe HighCouM I r thequestion of delayand laches The Honble Supreme Coun Z while the matter to the High Court made the following m observationsl W2 Z 10 In the case of pension the causeof action Qw actuallycontinues from month to month That however cannot be a groundto overlook delaylIl 1 filingthe petition It would dependuponthe fact 4eee of each case If petition 1S filed beyond a reasonable periodsay three years nonnallythe Court would rejectthe same or restrict the relief which could be grantedto a reasonableperiodof 44bWra0Ue1v130044td14340lW1W54 Batra Amit 2014.07.01 16: 37 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 39 em 0 4 ora eee4 nr nn Cnle I rM e CWP No4394 of 2010 7 aboutthreeyears The HighCourt did not examine whether on merit the appellant had a case If on meritsit would have found that therewas no scope 1 for interference it would have dismissed the writ petition on that score alone Learned counsel for the have also referredto various of this Court and also the govemment instructionsin regard to implemern of the of theHighCoun 0 0 The StateofPunjabissued instructionsdated172002 to all theFinancial I C5 Commissioners thePrincipal Secretariesand theAdministrative Secretaries I to theGovemmentofPunjabThe instructionsare as under Z 0 Wherever the rightsof the partieshave been 2 settledby a judgment of the Court the State has takenall remediesavailableto it in law against that I C0 judgment even uptothe highest court of the land Z and the judgmenthas attained finalitythen the ClO Statemust acceptthejudgment and implement it in 7 Z its true spiritand command There is implicit obligation on the partof the State to grant same relief to other membersof the cadre whose claim was basedupn identical factsand pointoflaw io The State Govemment shall as expeditiously e60We as possiblein any case not later than four months react and respondto a legal servedupon it by any of its employees in redressal Batra Amit 2014.07.01 16: 37 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 40 1 a4 r Wa 40 nn raeI S1eleh 4 e 1 CWP No14394 of2010 89 e of his of relief which has been grantedto his coemployeesimilarlysituated lll furtheranceto thejudgment of the Court Unless for reasons to be indicated in the reply tlheState feelscompelled to denysuch relief Needless to pointout that denialmust neitherbe evaslve nor 1 intended to circumvent the ordersof the Court L 6iii9In the event an employee is compelled 0 C3 to approachthe COUrt of law whereupon the court C5 awardsinterestandlor costs while allowingsuch a petitionthenthe incurred bythe State Z including the costslest paidlll 8lrtheranceto the ordersofthe Court should be recovered from 1 theerringofficer ivl The concemedquartersofthe Governmentare Z expectedto work out the details111furtheranceto 00 the above directions and issue pervasivebut lmao Z definiteinstructionsto all its forthwith Om to ensure compliance In the case of State of Rarnataka Orse Vse C La 14eeno 200612 SCC 747 Honble theSupreme Court while considering the right ofsimilarly situated petsons observedas underl 18 Service evolved by this Court from time to time postulatesthat all persons 2 2eI m4em14eS414VI04440 4ea41 Batra Amit 2014.07.01 16: 37 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 41 e r sF 1 ea Il 11 elv V 4 v9 Wa Ao e P CWPN014394 of 2010 90 r similarly situatedshould be treatedsimilarly Only becauseone person has the court that would not mean that persons similarlysituated shouldbe treateddifferently 53 I haveheardthe leamedcounselfor theparties at length The petitioners are similarly situatedas thewrit ln 1 Lekh Raj Kheras case supra However it is a fact that these writ have this Court a8er the judgment of Lekh R 0 40 Kherascase for thesimilar relief The Statewhileconcedingthattheyare I 9 similarly situatedresistedtheir claim onlyon the ground of delayin filing I the writ petitionsThe judgment in Lekh Raj Kheras case has attained Z flnalityand the State has the same vide its circular dad 18082010issuedbythe District Education Officer 6SE Gurdaspur to a11 0 the Masters etc The relevant instructions for its I are as underl Z As per letter under reference directions were m issuedto draw the arrears of the concemed with 17 Z regard to grantofpayscalefrom l11971 instead Oa of 1671975 in terms of the reportof the Kothari Commissionwithin a periodof 15 daysNow Civil Writ Petition No806212010has also beendisposed of by the Court in terms of the decision in Lekh Raj Kheras case Theefore if any petitionerof this writ petitionis pertaining to your school the due beneSt be givento himwithin 10 days md OWI S49 4 e e Batra Amit 2014.07.01 16: 37 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 42 010401Ae eSr1l W 405IdslVn40kv 4 1 71 14 CWP Nol4394 of2010 109 receiptbe sent to this offlce While releasing payment to the petitionerthe Head of the School will ensure that the beneflt has been conectly given to the petitioner as per instructionslrules If due to the of the school Head any petitionerremained deprivedfor payment the 1 concemed SchoolHead will be for the CL same 0 U From the above circular it is established that the State has C5 the judgment qua writ petitioners in Lekh Raj Kheras case I Instructionsdated 17772002 referredto aboveclearlydepictsGovemments Z policyto implement the attalg flnalitynot only quathe writ but also in respectto all non as well who are I similarly situatedand may be entitledto sililar relief These instructions are generalin nature and applyin all such cases wherever the judgment Z againstthe State has attainedfinality Despitethese ictions having OO beenissued in the year 2002 the Stateis actingin derogation thereof and W2 Z similarlyituated personsare lefl with no other optionbut to approach this a Court time and again This has the effect of this Court with unnecessary litigationand chockingthe justicedeliverysystem It may also be noticed that not onlythe Governmentitselfhas decided to implement the Cem judgmentin respect to all similarlysituatedpersons a Division Bench of this Court also issuedgeneraldirectionsin this regardin the case of Satbir SinghVse State of Haryana2002 20Service Cases Today 354 The relevant directions are contained in paragph 19 of this judgmentwhich enweem nme4114 41 4blPm 7 Batra Amit 2014.07.01 16: 37 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 43 40911e1041l OeI 1 Il 4 a n 0e eO 1r1106OW 64 Il 494 M ae CWPNo14394 of2010 119 r are as under 19 Be that as it may particularly in the afore referred premiseswe still feel that it is the boundendu of the Court to issue the following directions to the Statein the largerpublicinterest andfor properadministrationofjustice 1 i9 Wherever the rightsof the partieshaveoeen settledbya judgment of the Court the Statehas 0 0 takenall remediesavailableto it in law ag th I 0 even uptothe highest court of the land I and the has attained finality then the Z Statemust acceptthejudgment and implement it in its true spiritand command There is implicit r I obligation Oll the partof the State to grant same CO relief to other membersof the cadre whose claim Z wasbasedupon identical factsand pointoflaw r ii3 The StateGovernmentshall as 3 Z as rJossible in any casenot later than four months Qm react andrespond to a legal servedupon it by any of its employees in redressal of his of relief which has been 6eee grantedto his conployees similarlysituated ln lrtherance to thejudgmentof the Court Unless for reasons to be indicated in the replythe State feels compelledto denysuch relief Needless to vmwammww4 26e Batra Amit 2014.07.01 16: 37 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 44 4e4m4nee r1ur06r4000rwn49Wemw 4I lr nmv01419641 rle4 16 w 04911 r4 9 CWP No4394 of2010 612 pointout that denial must neither be evasive nor intended to circumvent the orders ofthe Court iio In the event such an employee is compelled to approachthe court of law whereupon the court awardsinterestandlor costs while allowingsuch a petitionthenthe incurredbytheState j including the costslinterestpaidin 61rtheranceto r the ordersofthe Court should be recovered from 0 40 theerringofficer6s I 0 6ivlThe concemedquartersofthe Cvemment are I expectedto work out the details in furtheranceto Z the above directions and issue pervasivebut definite instructionsto all its de1mentsforthwith r to ensure I t It is a matter of concem that the abovedirections issuedby this Z Court as far back as in the year 2002 are beingtloutedwith impunityThe m State has failed to discharge its obligationto grant relief to similarly m2 Z situatedpersonsat its own level Under such circumstancesit cannot be permitted to pleaddelayand lacheswherethe Stateitself is responsible for unnecessary litigation which could beconveniently tackled at administrative level on account of concluded and binditjudgments ofthis Court and the C Honble Supreme Court Apartfrom the above it has also come on record that aRer Lekh Rai Kheras case a number of writ petitionscame to be filed in the year 2009 and 2010 which have been decided by this Court grantingthe 2r aeemummwem7mea Batra Amit 2014.07.01 16: 37 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 45 1 ewwrsa ee vVoIUhmrtM vk6hueWnhWI9 merel 0vl hle 4 04 M aevd vlb411d 6 a p4 eW CWP Nol4394 of2010 139 r similarrelief as in Lekh Raj Kheras case and the State has chosen not to prefer anyappealagainst those The questionof reefixation of the salary 111 fact givesa recurring cause of action to the governmeMemployee as every month he looses some amount from his salaryor retir8l beneflts on account of wrong flxation of salaly Thus the doctrine of delayand laches cannot be 1 pennid to be invoked as thumbrule in every case The cited onbehalf of the Statemostly to appoint matters seniority and 0 t0 policyrnattersIn Ce Lalithas case supralHonble the Supreme Court 9 has clearlyheld that similarlysituatedpersons should not be treated I Similarly10 ShivDasss case supra9 cited on behalfof the Z Honb1e the Supreme Court has againclearlyheld that 111 2 casesofpensionat the most reliefcouldbe restrictedto threeyears C A Full Bench of this Court in the case of SarojKumari and othersvs The state of Punjaband others 1998 59 Services Law Z 266 have examined the questionof relxation in the context of Oo delayin the Court wherein it hasbeenheld as undec mW3 Z 9 Leamedcounselfor the submitted e that in case of wrong flxationof pay to which an employee may be entitledunder the relevant rules instructions or even on account of a judgment 44n thereis no questionof any limitation as the wrong paymentof salaryevery month 1S a continuing wrongagainsthim which givesnse to recurring causeofaction each time he is paidsalarywhich is an renw5n ePvm nlen ee 0 va4m I m el U 41 U b Batra Amit 2014.07.01 16: 37 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 46 b I 44ee4e444 r0e 1 v e41 r WIr r 401e rt mnie I1 2e1 4e e lrCn 4vWe n4m01 1 e r4 CWPNol4394 of 2010 149 r not computedaccordingto the relevant rules instructionsor ajudgmentthe employees in such a case has a rightto ask for a direction to the State Goveent or to the employer to fix the pay correctlyrightfrom dayone in accordancewith the relevantrules and instructions However while 1 the relief of arrears of pay etc the same can be con8ned to three years and two months 0 0 which is the periodof limitation providedfor 0 getting a relief of realisation of arrears in a civil 3 sui Z 14 For the foregoing reasonswe are of the view that in cases whereonlyfixation of pay according 0 to therelevant ruleslinstructionsor a judgment 1S Cl prayedfor the writ petitioncannot be dismissedat Z the thresholdon thegroundof delayand lachesbut 00 the paymentof arrears can be restricted to a 3 Z reasonableperiod Three years and two months Qm wouldbe considereda reasonableperiodas that is the periodfor which a person can ask for the paymentof arrears before a Civil Court Ce The cause of thepetitioners is a recurringcause Thus the ratio of the judgrnmtof the Full Bench is applicableon all four comers to the factsof this case Petitionersrightct be defeatedmerelyOn account of delayand laches thoughthe relief for arrears can be restrictedto a period wenwmeenemmenvnarmAaemm vowi4 Batra Amit 2014.07.01 16: 37 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 47 Sotl446 lwmoewe4meoWnnne rT 5 eValIl 4vea 0WS O r CWPNol4394 of2010 159 r ofthree years as observedby Honble the Supreme Court and Full Bench of thisCourt referredto hereinabove In view of the above circumstancesthesepetitions are allowed lll termsof the judgmentin Lekh Raj Kheras case However the claim for l arrears is restrictedto threeyearspreceding the filingof the writ petitions No costs m It is 81rtherdirectedthat all similarlysituatedgovemment C may be grantedthe relief in tenns of Lekh Raj Kheras case 0 0 thoughrestricting claim of arrears to threeyears It would be prudentand C9 for the Govemment to issue a circularInotification in this I regard as earlyas possible to prevent81rtherlitigation on this question Z A copy of this orderbe placed on the file of otherconnected 2 writ petitions tr 9 C Oo 112011 6PERMODKOHLo Z BLS RJDGE ClO L W2 Notel Whetherto be referredto theReporter9YES Z Qm 31 113 4 2 1 21 r t 9r 4 2eamwnsMeeaeonwneeWAeeW 4Ae4 e S 4W Batra Amit 2014.07.01 16: 37 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document