IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3337 of 2010. Date of Decision: 4th August, 2011. _______________________________________________________ Vakil Singh .. Petitioner. Versus H.P.S.E.B. & another .. Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. _________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J (Oral). By means of present petition, the petitioner has sought mainly the following relief: “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to release the actual monetary benefit of the petitioner on account of stepping up of pay of the petitioner w.e.f. 03.01.2003 or in alternative from 04.09.2003, date of representation of the petitioner, till 28.12.2005 when actual benefits on account of stepping up of pay have been allowed by the respondent-1 to the petitioner.” 2. The facts which giving rise to the present petition can be stated thus. The petitioner was appointed on 28.2.1970 as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) by the respondent- 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Board and on 3.7.1973 he was appointed as Steno-typist, thereafter promoted as Junior Scale Stenographer and later rose to the stage of Personal Assistant in the year 1989 (now re-designated as Additional Private Secretary, thereafter Senior Private Secretary) with effect from 12.2.2001 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.3.2009. One Shri Vijay Kumar, Senior Scale Stenographer, who was junior to the petitioner, was also promoted as Additional Private Secretary on 3.1.1996 which post was earlier equivalent to the Personal Assistant. His pay was raised with effect from 3.1.1996 from ` 8550/- to `9100/-, which was more than the petitioner. Thus the petitioner made a representation on 4.9.2003, which was decided by the respondent-Board on 28.12.2005 (Annexure P-3) by raising his pay on notional basis with effect from 3.1.1996, but financial benefits were granted prospectively, i.e., with effect from 28.12.2005. 3. On 16.11.20065 the petitioner made the representation to the respondent-Board accompanied by the judgment of the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal passed in OA No.356 of 2005, but nothing was heard despite reminders and repeated representations, hence the present petition. 4. The short question involved in this case is as to from which date the respondent-Board would pay the monetary benefits to the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 28.12.2005. - 3 - 5. The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the relief cannot be granted to the petitioner because the instant petition has been filed in the Court after five years, but there is no reply as to why the representations submitted by the petitioner were not decided. In paras 7 to 9 and also in the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondent-Board it stands admitted that Vijay Kumar Sood was getting higher pay than the petitioner. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the parties in the light of the record. In my opinion, once the petitioner has made representations to the respondent- Board, the Board was not justified in granting the benefit only from the date of passing the order without any financial benefit since when it had accrued to the petitioner and the anomaly which crept in the stepping- up should have been corrected by the respondent-Board suo-motu even without the representation of the petitioner. Legitimate dues cannot be denied to an employee. But if a person observes silence and does not agitate, he looses his remedy. There is no denial of the fact that he was not entitled for the financial benefits. On the representation of the petitioner, his grouse was held to be genuine by the respondent-Board. Therefore, at least from the date of his making representation, i.e., 4.9.2003 the Board should have acceded to the request of the petitioner for financial benefit from that date. The - 4 - judgment of the Tribunal passed in OA No.356 of 1995 decided on 10.11.2006, which was enclosed by the petitioner alongwith his representation, was also challenged by the respondent-Board by filing writ petition in this Court being CWP No.155 of 2007, which came to be decided by Division Bench of this Court on 2.12.2009, placed on record as Annexure P-7, also contained similar facts and the judgment of the Tribunal was modified to the extent that the petitioner was held entitled for the financial benefits from the date of making his representation. Therefore, I have no reason to differ with it. 7. For the afore-stated facts, the petition is allowed to the extent that the petitioner is entitled for the financial benefits with effect from 4.9.2003, the date of making his representation. The respondent-Board is hereby directed to ensure the release of the monetary benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months from the receipt of copy of the judgment, failing which it shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 8. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. August 4, 2011. (Surinder Singh), (rc) Judge.