Ravinder Kumar vs State of H.P. and Another

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The writ petition has been filed with the following:

Letter dated 29.1.2010, Annexure P-8 may kindly be quashed and further directions be given to the Respondents to grant the pay scale of Rs. 950-1800 (from 1.1.1986), which was later on revised to Rs. 3120-5160 (from 1.1.1996) and further revised from time to time, be ordered to be given to the Petitioner, as given to the similarly situated persons/Laboratory Attendants of Technical Education Department, with all consequential benefits.

Directing the Respondents to pay arrears to the Petitioner pursuant to the grant of revised pay scale of Rs. 950-1800 (from 1.1.1986), which was revised to Rs. 3120-5160 and further revised from time to time, from the date of entry into Government service/his initial appointment with interest @ 18% per annum from the due date till the date of actual payment and directions be issued to the Respondents to treat the case of the Petitioner on the same and similar lines as per directions given by this Hon''ble Court in CWP (T) No. 2346/2008 in case titled as Madan Gopal v. State of H.P and Anr.

It is seen that the first Respondent has rejected the representation on the ground that the decision in CWP (T) No. 2346 of 2008, Madan Gopal v. State of H.P and Anr. decided on 13-3-2009, would apply only to the Petitioners therein. We are afraid that the first Respondent has not understood the law in its correct perspective. In Annexure P-7 judgment, this Court held that in view of the decree passed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Hoshiarpur, the Laboratory Attendants have been held entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 950-1800, and being similarly situated person, the Petitioner is covered by Annexure P-7 judgment and was granted the benefit also. Thus, the Government has accepted in principle the entitlement of the Laboratory Attendants for the pay scale of Rs. 950-1800/-. Once a principle has been settled by the Court in one case and the same principle having been accepted by the State, it is not necessary that all the persons similarly situated, should approach the Court and obtain individual relief. That would only lead to multiplicity of proceeding and docket explosion apart from increasing the workload on administrative side of the Government. Therefore, there will be a direction to the Chief Secretary to the State of Himachal Pradesh to see that a judgment in the case of an incumbent, if accepted on principle by the Government, is implemented in the case of all the similarly situated persons without for obtaining individual judgments-decrees. We are compelled to issue such a direction since we found that in several judgments, the Government has taken such a stand that a judgment would apply only in the case of the Petitioner before the Court. The Government is entitled to such a stand in case the judgment applies only to individual concerned and that judgment is in persona, but if the judgment even in individual case is on principle and if that principle as such is followed by the Government in the case of one employee, that benefit should be extended to all the similarly situated persons.

The Chief Secretary will issue appropriate guidelines in this matter to the Administrative Departments within two months.

In that view of the matter, Annexure P-8 is set aside. In case, the Petitioner herein, is similarly situated, as the Petitioner covered by Madan Gopal''s case (supra), which has been accepted and implemented by the Government, on the same principle, similar benefits should be extended to the Petitioner herein also.

The needful shall be done within two months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment and eligible benefits shall also be disbursed to the incumbents within one month.

The writ petition is disposed of.