IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 10001 of 2008 Decided on : 12.05.2011 Vishal Himachal Pradesh Chaturath Shareni Rajkiya Karamchari Association ..… Petitioner. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and another …… Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed on the following substantive prayer vide para 7(i):- “That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the revised scale of Rs. 750/- per month with all admissible allowances to the present members of the applicant Association w.e.f 01-01-1986 alongwith arrears and interest thereto.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 2. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 1 of the preliminary submissions and para 6(ix to xiv) on merits:- “1. That the OA filed by the applicants claiming initial pay at Rs. 750 from 1.1.1986 to 1.3.1989, by filing an OA in the year 2003, i.e after a delay of 16 years deserves dismissal as the same is hopelessly time barred. 6(ix to xiv) Contents of the OA are a matter of record. The orders/Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal vide A-4 to A-6 are admitted and all other contents of these sub paras are wrong, hence denied. Facts of the case in to n/a are different and judgments are not fully to applicable to the facts of the present OA. The applicants can not claim the arrears of pay @ Rs.750/- p.m. for the period from 1.1.1986 to 1.3.1989 by filing of OA after 16 years when the remedy to seek relief, is barred at this stage and moreover when, the claim for “arrears for the above specific period from 1.1.1996 to 1.3.1989” is not based on “a continuing cause of action as the right ceases on 1.3.1989” and this the OA is not maintainable.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner- association submits at the very outset that the case of the members of the petitioner-association is covered under 3 orders dated November 3, 1993, Annexure A-4 and June 7, 2002, Annexure A-6, passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. 4. In view of the above, if on facts, the case of the members of the petitioner-association is covered under the aforesaid orders dated November 3, 1993, Annexure A-4 and June 7, 2002, Annexure A-6, passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal and they are similarly situate, they shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and benefit of the said orders shall be extended to them, within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment as also copies of aforesaid orders dated November 3, 1993, Annexure A-4 and June 7, 2002, Annexure A-6 of the Administrative Tribunal, by the petitioners. Needless to say consequential benefits, if any, would follow. 5. The petition as also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 12th May, 2011. Lsp*