IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4271 of 2021 Date of Decision: 12.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Gurcharan Singh Jaswal …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “(a) That respondents may kindly be directed to release the entire arrears to petitioners without any restriction from the date from which they have been granted higher pay scale of 1800-3200 on completion of 12 years of service (w.e.f.5.1.1987) similarly as paid to Sh. Hans Raj and others on basis of OA(D) No.1035/1994 and thereafter to Sh. Dev Raj and others on basis of OA(D) 151/2018; (b) That respondents may be directed to release the revised leave encashment to petitioners which is already fixed as per Annexure P-10 or petitioner be paid leave encashment strictly as per revised salary on which petitioner has been fixed after revision of pay scale.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, who has retired as Junior Engineer from the respondent-Department, is that arrears on account of grant of higher pay scale on completion of 12 years service could not have been restricted to three years, rather entire arrears from due date were required to be released in favour of the petitioner in terms of judgment dated 03.09.2020 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.5005 of 2019, titled as Krishan Chand Sharma and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. Petitioner herein was one of the petitioners in afore case decided by Co-ordinate Bench and he alongwith other petitioners had sought relief to extend the service benefit to him as well as other petitioners in terms of order dated 20.06.2000 passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. (D) No.1035 of 1994 titled as Hans Raj and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh,,, claiming that they are similarly situated to the petitioners in aforesaid original application. In afore case, instructions dated 01.09.2020 received from Engineer-in-Chief, Jal Shakti Vibhag, came to be placed on record alongwith copies of orders dated 27.8.2020 and 31.8.2020 passed by Superintending Engineer, Jal Shakti Circle, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, thereby apprising the Court that petitioners No. 5 to 7 namely, Gurcharan Singh, Ajit Singh and Hem Raj have also been found similarly situated to the petitioners in Hans Raj case and 3 as such, they are also entitled to be given higher pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 on completion of 12 years of service as Surveyor w.e.f.5.1.1987, 1.9.1993 and 4.3.1994, respectively. If the judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Krishan Chand Sharma (supra) is perused in its entirety, it clearly reveals that petitioner herein i.e Gurcharan Singh was petitioner No.5 in afore case and as such, he was also required to be granted benefit of higher pay scale from due date in terms of judgment passed in Hans Raj case (supra). Since Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while passing judgment in Krishan Chand Sharma (supra) had made the order passed in Hans Raj case in OA(D) No.1035/1994 mutatis-mutandi applicable to the petitioner herein, there was no occasion, if any, for the respondents to restrict the consequential benefits, especially arrears to three years prior to date of filing of the petition. 3. If reply filed on behalf of the respondents is perused in its entirety, there is no dispute with regard to entitlement of the petitioner to higher pay scale on account of his having completed 12 years’ service, but arrears of higher pay scale, to which petitioner otherwise has been held entitled vide judgment dated 03.09.2020 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Krishan Chand Sharma (supra) has been restricted in terms of instructions issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh in light of judgments rendered Hon'ble Apex Court 4 in Jai Dev Gupta vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Yogendra Shrivastva and Union of India and others vs. Tarsem Singh etc. This Court in case titled Balak Ram vs. Secretary (Forests) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 17th September, 2020 has already held that judgment passed in Jai Dev Gupta (supra) is not a judgment in rem, rather a judgment in personam. Since in afore case direction to restrict the arrears to three years prior to filing of the petition came to be passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in peculiar facts and circumstances and no law with regard to same ever came to be laid, no instructions/ notifications, thereby restricting the arrears to three years prior to filing of the petition could have been issued. Aforesaid aspect of the matter has been already dealt by this Court in detail in Balak Ram supra. At this stage, it would be profitable to reproduce para No.9 and 10 of the aforesaid judgment herein below:- “9. In Jai Dev Gupta’s case, tough the Hon'ble Apex Court restricted the claim of the petitioner for three years having taken note of the fact that he approached the Tribunal beyond the prescribed period of limitation i.e. after 18 years but, at no point of time, laid down any general principle that in all other cases, claimants/petitioners if entitled, would be paid arrears for three years prior to filing of the petition in the court of law. 10. There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that the Department/organization liable to pay some amount can pray for restricting the claim for a period of three years while placing reliance upon aforesaid judgment rendered in Jai Dev Gupta case, wherein admittedly Hon'ble Apex Court having taken note of delay of 18 years, restricted the claim of 5 the petitioner for a period of three years but, if no such restriction is ever put by the court, while holding petitioner/claimant entitled for the benefits, the Department/organization liable to pay the amount, of its own, cannot effect recovery or deduct the amount, on the basis of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Jai Dev Gupta.” 4. Though, at this stage, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General attempted to raise the issue of delay and laches, but he was unable to dispute that petitioner herein has been already held entitled to the benefit vide judgment dated 3.9.2020 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Krishan Chand Sharma supra, which has attained finality. Since in afore judgment, there was no direction to restrict the claim to three years prior to filing of the petition, impugned action of the respondents in restricting the claim of the petitioner to three years is not justifiable and accordingly deserves to be rectified. 5. Moreover, this Court finds that other persons, namely Krishan Chand, Ramesh Kumar, Harmesh Chand and Sansar Chand, who all were working as Junior Engineers in the same Department, have been given full arrears. If it is so, no discrimination, if any, can be done with the petitioner. As per own instructions placed on record by office of Engineer-in-Chief, Jal Shakti Vibhag, as have been taken note hereinabove, petitioner herein has been found similarly situate to that of the petitioner in Hans Raj case. Since petitioners in Hans Raj case including Hans Raj have been given full arrears, coupled with 6 the fact that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while passing judgment dated 03.09.2020 specifically made the directions contained in Hans Raj mutatis-mutandis applicable in the case of the petitioner, impugned action of the respondent in denying full arrears to the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present case and accordingly same is allowed. The respondents are directed to release full consequential benefits to the petitioner as has been released in case of Hans Raj and other petitioners in OA(D) No.1035 of 1994, expeditiously preferably within a period of eight months, failing which, petitioner would be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on arrears from due date. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 12,2025 (shankar)