Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 592 (HP)

Jaya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2012-09-18

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, KURIAN JOSEPH

body2012
Judgment Kurian Joseph, C.J. 1. The petitioners in these cases have approached this Court with identical set of prayers, therefore, one set of prayers is extracted below: A. “Quash the impugned action of the respondents whereby they have created two fictional pay- scale groups on the basis of their appointments being arbitrary, malafide and illegal. B. Hold the applicants entitled for pay scale i.e. Rs. 4400-7000/- w.e.f. 1.1.996 w.e.f. the dates of appointments of the applicants in the year 1997-98 with all the consequential benefits and annual increment and arrears thereof with interest @ 9% P.A. till realization of payment. C. Direct the respondents to pay the same scale Rs. 4400-7000/-w.e.f. the dates of appointments of the applicants I the year 1997-98 with all the consequential benefits and annual increments and arrears thereof with interest @ 9% P.A till realization of payment.” 2. CWP No. 5754 of 2010 and CWP No. 5755 of 2010 were filed on 14.10.2010 and CWP No. 6759 of 2012 was filed on 16.8.2012. In the nature of the order we propose to pass, it is not necessary for us to got into the various factual details. There is no dispute that the petitioners are similarly situated, as the petitioners covered by CWP(T) No. 14084 of 2008 decided on 20th April, 2010. That was followed in several cases. The basic decision was challenged by the State before the apex Court and the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed by the order dated 3.7.2012 (CC 9497-9498/12). Therefore, the issue in principle has attained finality. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General and learned Assistant Advocate General submit that the actual monetary benefits may be limited to a period of 36 months, inviting our reference to the decision of the apex Court in Jai Dev Gupta vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another AIR 1998 SCC, 2819. On that principle also, there cannot be any dispute. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to extend the benefits of pay fixation, in the case of the petitioners herein also, as has been done in the case of petitioners in CWP(T) No. 14084 of 2008. The pay shall be notionally fixed from the due date, but the actual monetary benefits will be limited to 36 months, prior to the filing of the writ petitions and continued thereafter. 4. The pay shall be notionally fixed from the due date, but the actual monetary benefits will be limited to 36 months, prior to the filing of the writ petitions and continued thereafter. 4. With these observations, the writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.