ORDER : Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record, copy of Office Order dated 30.11.2021, issued by the Deputy Director of Higher Education, District Sirmour at Nahan, whereby rectifying the mistake of the department, petitioner has been conferred status of daily wager w.e.f 12.10.2017 on the basis of date of his first appointment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said status has been conferred upon him on notional basis, despite the fact that fault is on the part of officer/official concerned and there is no fault on the part of the petitioner. 3. It is an admitted fact as also accepted by the respondent-department in the reply, that correct seniority was not assigned to the petitioner by mistake which has been rectified by the Department. 4. At this stage, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that in view of judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Jai Dev Gupta vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another ( AIR 1998 SC 2819 ) and also for instructions issued by the Finance Department of Government of Himachal Pradesh, arrears of the petitioner deserved to be restricted for three years prior to filing the petition. In Jai Devi Gupta’s case (supra) is not a judgment in rem but judgment in personem, wherein in the facts and circumstances of the case Supreme Court had considered it appropriate to restrict the back wages for three years from the date of filing of the petition. Imposition of such restriction shall depend upon facts and circumstances of each case that too in case Court has restricted the benefits in such manner but not otherwise. Plea of learned Additional Advocate General that instructions issued by the Finance Department also provide that arrears in such cases should be restricted for three years prior to filing of the petition by the employee is also not correct view as unless or until the Court has restricted the payment of arrears, the employer/Government is not competent or authorized to restrict the arrears where Court has directed to pay the consequential benefits to the employee on the basis of judgment for which employee was otherwise entitled. A coordinate Bench of this Court, in CWPOA No. 5637 of 2019 titled Balak Ram Versus Secretary (Forests) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and others decided on 17.9.2020, has observed as under:- “9. A coordinate Bench of this Court, in CWPOA No. 5637 of 2019 titled Balak Ram Versus Secretary (Forests) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and others decided on 17.9.2020, has observed as under:- “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/organisation 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 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.” 5. Status of job of the petitioner was a Part Time Water Carrier which is a post of lowest rank and he was to be conferred with status of daily wager by the respondent-Department. The State being custodian of rights of citizen, instead of infringing, is expected to protect such rights. Where it is duty of the respondent- Department, on behalf of State, to confer the status or extend benefits to an employee of lowest rank, then for failure on the part of department i.e State, the employee cannot be punished for that. Where there is failure on part of State or Department to perform its duty, it must own its responsibility and shall not resort to such practice like restrictions of arrears for which employee is or was otherwise entitled. 6. On the basis of seniority, petitioner was entitled for conferment of daily wager status w.e.f 12.10.2017 alongwith consequential benefits. Petitioner has been deprived from his lawful entitlement for lapse on the part of respondent-Department-State. 6. On the basis of seniority, petitioner was entitled for conferment of daily wager status w.e.f 12.10.2017 alongwith consequential benefits. Petitioner has been deprived from his lawful entitlement for lapse on the part of respondent-Department-State. For fault on the part of respondent-department, petitioner cannot be made to suffer. 7. Accordingly, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to give all consequential benefits to the petitioner as a daily wager from 12.10.2017 on actual basis. The said benefits shall be extended/disbursed on or before 31.1.2022, failing which the petitioner shall also be entitled for interest @ 6% per annum thereon from the date of accrual till full and final payment of those benefits. Respondents-State shall be entitled to recover interest component from its Officers and/or Officials responsible for delay in disbursement. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.