Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 15186 (HP)

Manohar lal v. STATE OF HP

CWPOA/6814/2020 · 2026-07-09

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2026:HHC:28234 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPOA No.6814 of 2020 & CWPOA No. 148 of 2019 Decided on: 09.07.2026 1.CWPOA No. 6814 of 2020 Manohar Lal and others ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents 2.CWPOA No. 148 of 2019 Amar Nath Rai and others ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. _______________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate in CWPOA No.148 of 2019. Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate in CWPOA No.6814 of 2020. For the respondents: Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2026:HHC:28234 ) 2 Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) Since common question of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. For the purpose of deciding the controversy, the facts of CWPOA No.6814 of 2020 are taken up. 3. Both these petitions have been filed with the identical prayers, one set of such prayers mentioned in CWPOA No.6814 of 2020 is reproduced as under:- “i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to give effect to the notification dated 28.09.2012 (Annexure A-6) in case of Ayurvedic Pharmacist and Chief Ayurvedic Pharmacist as well. ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to enhance the pay scale + Grade pay of Chief Aryuvedic Pharmacist at Rs. 10300-34800/- + 4600/- Grade Pay from the due date i.e. 01.10.2012 alongwith upto date interest with all consequential benefits. iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to enhance the pay scale + Grade pay of Aryuvedic Pharmacists at Rs. 10300-34800+4200 Grade Pay from the due date i.e. 01.10.2012 alongwith upto date interest with all consequential benefits.” 4. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the Ayurvedic Pharmacists appointed with the respondents-State were granted the same pay scales as granted to their counterparts in the Health and Family Welfare Department of the State Government. As per office memorandum dated 20.01.1982, the pay-scale of Rs.160- ( 2026:HHC:28234 ) 3 400/- was revised to Rs.510-940/-, which was made applicable w.e.f. 01.04.1978. Thereafter, vide Notification dated 26.12.1990, the pay scale was revised from Rs.510-940/- to Rs.1410-2460/- with start of Rs.1470 and Rs.1640-2925/- and in the ratio of 50:50. Thereafter, again the respondent-State had revised the pay scale of the cadre of the Ayurvedic Pharmacist vide Notification dated 27.12.1999 (Annexure A-3) and revised pay scale was given of Rs.4550-7220/- with start of Rs.4700/-. However, the existing incumbents in the pay scale of Rs.1650-2925/- were allowed the revised equivalent of Rs.5480-8925/- as a measure personal to them. This pay scale was made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.1996. It is relevant to mention here that earlier the nomenclature of the post was Ayurvedic Compounder, which was later on changed to Ayurvedic Pharmacist vide Notification dated 16.03.1991. The Ayurvedic Pharmacists working in the Ayurveda Department were equated with the Pharmacists working in the Health and Family Welfare Department from very beginning and further the pay scales, which were granted to the Pharmacists in the Health and Family Welfare Department were given to the Ayurvedic Pharmacists. It has further been averred that pay scale of Ayurvedic Pharmacist as well as Pharmacist in the Health and Family was revised on 26.08.2009 from Rs.4550-7220/- to Rs.5910-20200/- + Rs.3000/- Grade pay ( 2026:HHC:28234 ) 4 and was made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2006. After the revision of pay scale in the Health and Family Welfare Department, the benefit of the same pay scale was given to the Ayurvedic Pharmacists and they started receiving the amount as given to the Pharmacists in the Health and Family Welfare Department. 5. It has further been averred in the petition that in the year 1988, the post of Ayurvedic Pharmacist was upgraded as Chief Ayurvedic Pharmacist in the pay-scale of Rs.750-1300/- vide Government communication dated 09.08.1988, which was with the prior approval of the Finance Department of the State Government. It has also been averred that on 14.02.1992, the pay scale of the Ayurvedic Pharmacist was revised from Rs.750-1300/- to Rs.1800- 3200/- at par with the Chief Pharmacist in the Health and Family Welfare Department, which was allowed to them on 03.04.1991. The pay scale of Chief Pharmacist was further revised from Rs.1800- 3200/- to Rs.5800-9200/- as per master scale applicable w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Thereafter, the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the Ayurvedic Pharmacist were framed and notified on 22.02.2000 on the analogy/basis with the Chief Pharmacist in the Health and Family Welfare Department. It has also been averred that on 22.02.2008, 89 posts of Ayurvedic Pharmacist were upgraded in the pre-revised scale of Rs.5800-9200/- with prior approval of the ( 2026:HHC:28234 ) 5 competent authority at par with the category of Chief Pharmacist in the Health and Family Welfare Department and they were also granted the pay scale. As per Notification dated 26.08.2009, the pay scale of Chief Ayurvedic Pharmacist was further revised from Rs.5800-9200/- to Rs.10300-34800+3800 Grade Pay made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2006. 6. Respondent No.1 issued Notification on 28.09.2012 when the pay scales of Chief Pharmacist as well as Pharmacist in the Health and Family Welfare Department were revised and pay scale of Chief Pharmacist was fixed at Rs.10300-34800/- + 4600 Grade Pay and pay scale of Pharmacist was revised and fixed at Rs.10300- 34800/- + Rs.4200/- Grade Pay. According to this Notification, the Chief Pharmacist and Pharmacist working in the Health and Family Welfare Department were granted the said pay scales, but the petitioners who were working as Chief Ayurvedic Pharmacists and Ayurvedic Pharmacists in respondent No.2-Department were not paid the said pay scales and the precise grouse of the petitioners is that once they were being granted the same pay scales as granted to their counterparts in the Health and Family in the Health and Family Welfare Department from the very beginning, they are also entitled to get the same pay scales as per Notification dated 28.09.2012. ( 2026:HHC:28234 ) 6 7. The petitioners have also averred that even on the administrative side, the Administrative Department had also mooted a proposal granting them the same pay scales on the analogy of their counterparts in the Health and Family Welfare Department, but nothing was done despite raising the issues with respondent No.1. Even the proposal was mooted by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2, as evident from perusal of Annexure A-8 dated 03.10.2012, stating that the same pay scales were allowed to the Ayurvedic Pharmacists/Chief Ayurvedic Pharmacists during the past revision of pay scales w.e.f. 01.04.1978. 01.01.1986, 01.01.1996 and conversion w.e.f. 01.01.2006. However, despite that the prayer made by the petitioners was not acceded to and hence they have approached this Court by way of present writ petitions to grant them the benefit of Notification dated 28.09.2012 (Annexure A-6) on the grounds that the said Notification would have made applicable ipso facto to them in view of the fact that they were granted the same pay scales from the initial date of their appointments and not extending the said benefits to the petitioners is not justified and tenable in the eyes of law. It has further been averred that the respondent-State being a model employer is under obligation to treat its employees on equal footings and they have no authority ( 2026:HHC:28234 ) 7 under law to adopt a different yardstick for similar situate employees. 8. The respondents filed reply to the petition and raised preliminary submissions that the petition is not maintainable in its present form and hence liable to be dismissed. In fact, the petitioners are Ayurvedic Pharmacists and are demanding the grant of pay scale alongwith grade pay at par with their counterparts in the Health and Family Welfare Department from the retrospective effect, which is not tenable. The petitioners are estopped from filing the petition by their own act, conduct and deed and further the matter of granting pay scale is the prerogative of the Government and it has exclusive jurisdiction to legislate or issue executive instructions on State Public Services. The State Government can decide the pay scales etc. which is also one of the service conditions prescribed in the R&P Rules notified under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, the pay scales are allowed/revised from time to time under the H.P. Civil Services Pay Rules, framed/notified by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by provision of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It has further been averred that as per various orders of the Hon’ble Courts, it is the prerogative of the Government and expert bodies to consider the cases relating to revision of pay of the State ( 2026:HHC:28234 ) 8 Government employees on the basis of staffing pattern and peculiar circumstances in the State during the intervening period of general revision of pay scales to give its suggestions/recommendations to the competent authority. Further the revisions of pay scales/structures/any financial benefits to the government employees will be allowed from the prospective dates without giving any relevance to it retrospectively. Two posts carrying the same pay scale at particular time does not justify grant of same pay scale after general revision of pay scales. It has also been averred that the service conditions and responsibilities of the Allopathic Pharmacists are not identical with that of Ayurvedic Pharmacists and hence there is no parity between the two in respect of qualifications too. 9. The petitioners filed rejoinder to the reply and converted the averments made in the reply. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 11. It is not in dispute that the categories of Ayurvedic Pharmacists and Chief Ayurvedic Pharmacists initially working in the Ayurvedic Department were being granted the same pay scales as granted to their counterparts, who were working as Pharmacists and Chief Pharmacists in the Health and Family Welfare Department of the State Government. It is also not in dispute that the said pay ( 2026:HHC:28234 ) 9 scales w.e.f. 01.04.1978, 01.01.1986, 01.01.1996 and the corresponding conversion w.e.f. 2006 were paid to the categories of the petitioners. It is also not in dispute that as per Notification dated 28.09.2012, issued by respondent No.1, Chief Pharmacists were granted pay band of Rs.10,300-34,800/- + Rs. 4600/- Grade Pay. Further, the Pharmacists who were getting the pay scale of Rs.10,300-34,800/- were granted the Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- .However, this pay band and Grade Pay will be given after completion of two years service to the Pharmacists w.e.f. 01.10.2012 and these benefits have been given to Chief Pharmacists and Pharmacists working in the Health and Family Welfare Department. 12. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned senior counsel and Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned counsel, representing the petitioners in both the petitions have vehemently argued that once the petitioners are discharging the same and similar duties and further from the initial date of creating posts in the Ayurvedic Department, the categories of Ayurvedic Pharmacist and Chief Ayurvedic Pharmacist were getting the same pay scales as granted to their counterparts who were working on the posts of Pharmacist and Chief Pharmacist in the Health and Family Welfare Department, there is no cogent ( 2026:HHC:28234 ) 10 reason assigned by the respondents to deny the same pay scale and benefits to the categories of the petitioners. 13. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General representing the respondents-State has vehemently opposed the said prayer on the ground that even if in the past, the same pay scales were granted to both the categories, it is within the domain of the State Government to grant the pay scales and it is not within the purview of the Court to equate the posts for granting pay scales. Learned Deputy Advocate General has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and another vs. West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association and others, (2010) 5 SCC 225, Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited and another vs. Balbir Kumar Walia and others, (2021) 8 SCC 784 and Union of India vs. India Navy Civilian Design Officers Association and another, (2023) 19 SCC 482, and contended that the writ petitions being devoid of merits deserve to be dismissed. Learned Deputy Advocate General has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in CWPOA No.1556 of 2019, titled, Nek Ram and others vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 17.03.2026 and prayed for the dismissal of the writ petitions. ( 2026:HHC:28234 ) 11 14. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.T. Veerappa and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, (2006) 9 SCC 406, Union of India vs. Dineshan K.K., (2008) 1 SCC 586, State of Punjab and others vs. Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association & others, (2017) 9 SCC 379, and judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP(T) No.9754 of 2008, titled, Sh. Rajesh Sohal and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, decided on 01.11.2010 and submitted that the relief claimed by the petitioners deserves to be granted to them. 15. I have gone through the aforesaid judgments cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the parties. 16. It is not in dispute that it is not within the realm of the Court to grant the pay scales or equate the posts for the purpose of granting pay scales and it is purely the function of the executive or the expert bodies constituted for the purpose of granting pay scales. The Hon’ble Apex Court in P.U. Joshi and others vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and others, (2003) 2 SCC 632, has held that the determination of service conditions are exclusively within the realm of the executive Government and granting of pay scales is the prerogative of the Government. However, if there is no rational ( 2026:HHC:28234 ) 12 in fixing the pay scales or injustice has been caused to the employees, the Court can definitely step in and remove the anomaly. 17. In the present case, as already noticed above, from the initial date of appointments of the petitioners as Ayurvedic Pharmacists and thereafter some of them having been promoted to the posts of Chief Ayurvedic Pharmacist, they were getting the same pay scales, which were granted to their counterparts holding the identical posts of Pharmacist and Chief Pharmacist in the Health and Family Welfare Department and, therefore, the respondents while issuing Notification dated 28.09.2012 cannot grant the revised pay scale or financial benefits to the Pharmacists and Chief Pharmacists working in the Health and Family Welfare Department as the same is totally arbitrary action on the part of the respondent-State, especially when there is no difference in the jobs being performed by them. 18. As already observed above, no doubt it is not within the realm of the Court to grant the pay scales or equate the posts for the purpose of granting pay scales to the employees and it is the function and duty of the employer, but there cannot be absolute rule that the Court has no jurisdiction to examine any pay structure and an aggrieved employee cannot be left with no remedy, if he is ( 2026:HHC:28234 ) 13 unjustly treated by arbitrary State action. It is true that the pay scale in one Department cannot give right to an employee in another Department to claim parity. However, when there is unreasonableness on the part of the employer, the Court can definitely interfere in the matter and direct the employer to grant the same pay scale as granted to other employees in the State, particularly where, on the initial date of appointment, the same pay scales were granted. This Court would not have considered the prayer of the petitioners to grant them the same pay scales as per Notification dated 28.09.2012, which has been granted to the categories of Pharmacists and Chief Pharmacists in the Health and Family Welfare Department, in case, the respondent-State in the past would not have been granting the same pay scales w.e.f. 01.04.1978 till issuance of Notification dated 28.09.2012. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that even respondent No.3, who is the appointing authority of the petitioners had written vide letter dated 03.10.2012 (Annexure A-8) that their pay scales/grade pay has to be upgraded at par with the Pharmacists and Chief Ayurvedic Pharmacists working in the Health and Family Welfare Department of the State Government in light of the past practice and previous Notifications issued by the Government in the interest of justice and fair play. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ( 2026:HHC:28234 ) 14 Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association’s case (supra) has succinctly dealt with the issue and has returned the findings that when both the classes or group of persons were treated as same in the past by the State, any attempt to curtail their salary and allowances would amount to arbitrariness which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law if no reasonable justification is offered for the same. In the present case, while filing reply to the petition, the only plea which has been taken is that it is the prerogative of the executive to grant the pay scales and even if in the past the same scales were granted to the category of the petitioners, that will not entitle them to get the same pay scales as granted to the Pharmacists and Chief Pharmacists working in the Health and Family Welfare Department. The said submission cannot justify the stand of the respondents. The relevant paras of the judgment in Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association’s case (supra) are reproduced hereunder:- “26) The principle of equality, is also fundamental in formulation of any policy by the State and the glimpse of the same can be found in Articles 38, 39, 39-A, 43 and 46 embodied in Part IV of the Constitution of India. These Articles of the Constitution of India mandate that the State is under a constitutional obligation to assure a social order providing justice- social, economic and political, by inter alia, minimizing monetary inequalities, and by securing the right to adequate means of livelihood and by providing for adequate wages so as to ensure, an appropriate standard of life, and by promoting economic interests of the weaker ( 2026:HHC:28234 ) 15 sections. Meaning thereby, if the State is giving some economic benefits to one class while denying the same to other then the onus of justifying the same lies on the State specially in the circumstances when both the classes or group of persons were treated as same in the past by the State. Since Vocational Masters had been drawing same salary as Vocational Lecturers were drawing before the application of 4th Pay Commission, any attempt to curtail their salary and allowances would amount to arbitrariness which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law if no reasonable justification is offered for the same. 27. We are conscious of the fact that a differential scale on the basis of educational qualifications and the nature of duties is permissible. However, it is equally clear to us that if two categories of employees are treated as equal initially, they should continue to be so treated unless a different treatment is justified by some cogent reasons. In a case where the nature of duties is drastically altered, a differential scale of pay may be justified. Similarly, if a higher qualification is prescribed for a particular post, a higher scale of pay may be granted. However, if the basic qualifications and the job requirements continued to be identical as they were initially laid down, then the Court shall be reluctant to accept the action of the authority in according a differential treatment unless some good reasons are disclosed. Thus, the decisions relied upon by learned senior counsel are clearly distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts of the present case.” 19. Learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association’s case (supra), it has been held that merely subject post and reference category posts carried similar posts and enjoying equal pay at an earlier point of time should be continued to be given higher pay scale and the similar benefits cannot be claimed. I have gone through the said judgment and the same is not applicable to the ( 2026:HHC:28234 ) 16 facts of the present case in view of three-Judge Bench decision in Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association’s case (supra). In the present case, since the categories of the petitioners were being granted the same pay scales in the past from the year 1978 as granted to similar categories in the Health and Family Welfare Department of the State Government, there is no justification to deviate from the said pay scale without assigning any reasons. As already stated above, it is not within the realm of the Court to grant the pay scales or equate the posts for the purpose of granting pay scales and this Court would not have ventured into that aspect, had it been only on the anomaly that the petitioners were demanding the pay scales on the basis of existing pay scales in other Departments, if they were not granted the same pay scales from the very inception. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that once the petitioners have been granted the same pay scales from the very beginning as granted in their corresponding categories in the Health and Family Welfare Department, the denial of the same to them cannot be sustained, especially when no reasons have been assigned and the same tantamounts to infraction of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The respondent-State being a model employer has to treat every employee equally. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.T. Veerappa’s case (supra) has held that no doubt, this Court ( 2026:HHC:28234 ) 17 cannot interfere with the fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties and it is the function of the executive, however, it is equally well settled that the Court can interfere where the financial capacity of the Government and the priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the Government are also relevant factors. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “13. He next contended that fixation of pay and parity in duties is the function of the Executive and financial capacity of the Government and the priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the Government are also relevant factors. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association and Union of India v. S.B. Vohra. There is no dispute nor can there be any to the principle as settled in State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association that fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties is the function of the Executive and the scope of judicial review of administrative decision in this regard is very limited. However, it is also equally well-settled that the courts should interfere with administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors.” 20. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dineshan K.K’s case (supra) has held that no doubt the equation of posts and ( 2026:HHC:28234 ) 18 equation of pay structure being complex matters are generally left to the executive and expert bodies like the Pay Commission etc. Nevertheless, it will not be correct to lay down as an absolute rule that merely because determination and granting of pay scales is the prerogative of the executive, the Court has no jurisdiction to examine any pay structure and an aggrieved employee has no remedy if he is unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction, except to go on knocking at the doors. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “13. Initially, particularly in the early eighties, the said principle was being applied as an absolute rule but realizing its cascading effect on other cadres, in subsequent decisions of this Court, a note of caution was sounded that the principle of equal pay for equal work had no mathematical application in every case of similar work. It has been observed that equation of posts and equation of pay structure being complex matters are generally left to the Executive and expert bodies like the Pay Commission etc. It has been emphasized that a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed by the Court as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. (Vide: Secretary, Finance Department Vs. W.B. Registration Service Association and State of Haryana Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association . Nevertheless, it will not be correct to lay down as an absolute rule that merely because determination and granting of pay scales is the prerogative of the Executive, the Court has no jurisdiction to examine any pay structure and an ( 2026:HHC:28234 ) 19 aggrieved employee has no remedy if he is unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction, except to go on knocking at the doors of the Executive or the Legislature, as is sought to be canvassed on behalf of the appellants. Undoubtedly, when there is no dispute with regard to the qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the persons holding identical posts or ranks but they are treated differently merely because they belong to different departments or the basis for classification of posts is ex-facie irrational, arbitrary or unjust, it is open to the Court to intervene.” 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in Union of India and others vs. D.G.O.F Employees Association and another, 2024 (1) SLR 99 (S.C.) has held that though the equation of posts and equation of pay structure being complex matters are generally left to the executive and expert bodies like the Pay Commission etc. and the carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed by the Court as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well, nevertheless, it will not be correct to lay down as an absolute rule that merely because determination and granting of pay scales is the prerogative of the executive, the Court has no jurisdiction to examine any pay structure and an aggrieved employee cannot be left with no remedy. 22. The cumulative effect of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited above, in my considered opinion, the ( 2026:HHC:28234 ) 20 petitioners once were being granted the same pay scales w.e.f. 01.04.1978 on the analogy of the pay scales fixed with respect to their categories in the Health and Family Welfare Department, there is no justification to deny them the same pay scales and the explanation put forth by the respondents that it is the prerogative of the State Government to fix the pay scales is without any substance. Some cogent reasons should have been given by the respondents to deny the same pay scales to the petitioners. It has not been denied by the respondents in the reply, which fact otherwise cannot be disputed, in view of the communication dated 03.10.2012, wherein it has been categorically mentioned that in the past, revision of pay scales w.e.f. 01.04.1978 were being granted to the categories of the petitioners and thus, the action on the part of the respondent-State in not extending the benefit of the Notification dated 28.09.2012 to the categories of the Ayurvedic Pharmacist and Chief Ayurvedic Pharmacist is arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory inasmuch as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 23. 23. Consequently, the present petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to grant the same pay scales to the petitioners as per Notification dated 28.09.2012 (Annexure A-6) in CWPOA No.6814 of 2020 of the posts of Pharmacist and Chief Pharmacist, which were granted to the Ayurvedic Pharmacists and ( 2026:HHC:28234 ) 21 Chief Ayurvedic Pharmacists, respectively working in the Health and Family Welfare Department. However, it is made clear that the arrears to the petitioners will be granted three years prior to the institution of the petitions. In case the respondents do not pay the arrears on account of implementation of the Notification dated 28.09.2012 to the petitioners within three months from today, they shall be liable to pay interest @6% per annum from today till the actual payment to them. 24. Both the writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 9th July, 2026 Judge (naveen)