ORDER : By way of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned order dated 02.12.2020, contained in Annexure P-9, passed by respondent No.1, rejecting the genuine claim of the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside by issuing writ of certiorari. (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to pay amount of arrears on account of enhanced pay and allowances for the left out period w.e.f. 15.12.1999 to 02.03.2005 along with interest @ 9% per annum by issuing writ of mandamus.” 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that on 31.10.1988, petitioner was selected as Village Extension Officer through H.P. Public Service Commission and since then, he had been working with the respondent-department till his superannuation. Since, despite petitioner being eligible, he was not being promoted to the post of Horticulture Development Officer, he approached this Court by way of CWP-T No. 2493 of 2008, titled Shiv Ram and another vs. State of H.P. & others (Annexure P-1). After having taken into consideration pleadings adduced on record by respective parties in the aforesaid case, this Court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Horticulture Development Officer w.e.f. 1999 with all consequential benefits against the available vacancies or by creating supernumerary posts within a period of four months from the date of passing of the judgment. It is not in dispute that aforesaid judgment never came to be laid challenge in the superior court of law and as such, same has attained finality. 3. Pursuant to directions contained in the aforesaid judgment, respondents vide notification dated 27.01.2014 (Annexure P-2), convened a meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee and thereafter on its recommendation, promoted the petitioner to the post of Horticulture Development Officer (Class-I Gazetted) in the department of Horticulture w.e.f. 15.12.1999 (on contract basis) and w.e.f 16.9.2009 (on regular basis). 3. Pursuant to directions contained in the aforesaid judgment, respondents vide notification dated 27.01.2014 (Annexure P-2), convened a meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee and thereafter on its recommendation, promoted the petitioner to the post of Horticulture Development Officer (Class-I Gazetted) in the department of Horticulture w.e.f. 15.12.1999 (on contract basis) and w.e.f 16.9.2009 (on regular basis). However, while passing aforesaid order of promotion, no arrears, if any, were paid to the petitioner on account of his being promoted to the post of Horticulture Development Officer from due date, as such, he was compelled to approach this Court by way of Execution Petition No. 10 of 2015, which ultimately came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 25.08.2015, Annexure P-3. Vide aforesaid judgment, Division Bench of this Court disposed of Execution Petition filed by the petitioner directing the respondents to comply with the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment dated 24.08.2012, passed by this Court in CWP-T NO. 2493 of 2008, wherein admittedly this Court while issuing direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Horticulture Development Officer had ordered for grant of all consequential benefits. Despite there being aforesaid order passed in execution proceedings, respondents failed to comply with the aforesaid directions contained in judgment dated 24.08.2012, Annexure P-3, passed by this Court and as such, petitioner filed contempt petition bearing COPC No. 421/2016, Annexure P-6, which came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 18.05.2017. Careful perusal of the aforesaid judgment reveals that during the pendency of the contempt petition, order dated 15.05.2017 (Annexure P-5) came to be passed by Principal Secretary (Horticulture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, conveying therein decision to implement the judgment dated 24.08.2012, passed by this Court in CWP-T No.2493 of 2002, Division Bench of this Court, having taken note of the aforesaid communication, disposed of the contempt petition, but reserved liberty to the petitioner to lay challenge to aforesaid consideration order passed by the authorities by way of independent proceedings. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, specifically laying therein challenge to order dated 15.05.2017 (Annexure P-5) whereby respondents while implementing the judgment dated 24.08.2012, passed by this Court in CWP-T No.2483 of 2008, restricted the arrears due to the petitioner on account of his promotion to the post of Horticulture Development Officer for 3 years prior to date of filing of the aforesaid petition. 4. It is pertinent to take note of the fact that before filing the petition at hand, petitioner filed representation to the department stating therein that as per judgment dated 24.08.2012, passed by this Court in CWP-T No.2483 of 2008, he is entitled to consequential benefits from due date, but fact remains that his representation was suddenly rejected vide order dated 2.12.2020 ( Annexure P-9). 5. Reply to the petition stands filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, perusal whereof clearly reveals that there is no dispute as far as the facts of the case, as have been noticed hereinabove. Respondents have stated in their reply that since petitioner never worked against the post of Horticulture Development Officer prior to his being promoted to this post vide order dated 27 January, 2014, passed by the respondents in terms of judgment dated 24.08.2012, passed by this Court in CWP-T No.2483 of 2008, there is no occasion, if any, for granting him consequential benefits from the due date. Apart from above, it has been also stated in the reply that petitioner is not entitled to arrears for a period prior to three years from the date of filing of the writ petition in terms of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Jai Dev Gupta ( AIR 1998 SC 2819 ), Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General while inviting attention of this Court to aforesaid judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Jai Dev’s case supra, vehemently argued that no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while restricting arrears for a period of 3 years from the date of filing of the petition. He also invited attention of this Court to judgment dated 09.04,2021 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2879 of 2018, titled Vinod Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Anr. He also invited attention of this Court to judgment dated 09.04,2021 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2879 of 2018, titled Vinod Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Anr. to suggest that once petitioner has not worked against the post to which he has been promoted, he is not entitled for arrears, rather arrears, if any, can be only given for a period of 3 years prior to the date of filing of the petition. 6. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds merit in the present petition and as such same deserves to be allowed. It is not in dispute that this Court vide judgment dated 24.08.2012, passed by this Court in CWP-T No.2483 of 2008 (Annexure P-1) while directing the respondents to promote petitioner to the post of Horticulture Development Officer w.e.f. 1999 against available vacancies or by creating supernumerary posts, categorically ordered to pay consequential benefits. Once, Court has categorically recorded expression “consequential benefits” w.e.f. 1999, petitioner is entitled to arrears on account of his being promoted to the post of Horticulture Development Officer w.e.f.1999. Interestingly, in the case at hand, though respondents vide order dated 27.01.2014, Annexure P-2, promoted petitioner to the post of Horticulture Development Officer w.e.f. 15.12.1999 (on contract basis) and thereafter (on regular basis) w.e.f. 16.02.2009, but allegedly refused to grant him consequential benefits. This Court in previous proceedings after having found that petitioner was entitled to post of the Horticulture Development Officer w.e.f. 1999, but he was ignored and ineligible person was promoted, specifically directed respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of Horticulture Development Officer w.e.f. 1999, either against the available vacancy or by creating supernumerary posts with all consequential benefits. 7. If the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court is read in its entirety, it clearly reveals that it was not the petitioner, who never came forward to render his duties against the post to which he subsequently came to be promoted, rather he was prevented by department itself from discharging his duties against the post of Horticulture Development Officer by promoting ineligible person. At every step, for realization of his admissible dues, petitioner was compelled to knock the door of the Court. At every step, for realization of his admissible dues, petitioner was compelled to knock the door of the Court. Reasoning given in order dated 29.05.2017 (Annexure P-5), which has been laid challenge in the instant petition (Annexure P-6), is totally absurd and not sustainable. At the first instance, claim of the petitioner for arrears from due date on account of his being promoted to the post of Horticulture Development Officer, could not be restricted for three years, in view of positive directions issued by this Court while passing of judgment dated 24.08.2012 to pay all the consequential benefits w.e.f. 1999 and thereafter judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Jai Dev’s case supra, has no applicability in the present case. 8. Whether on the basis of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Jai Dev’s case supra, arrears can be ordered to be restricted for three years, is a question already dealt with by this Court in case titled Balak Ram vs. Secretary (Forests) to the Government of Himalchal Pradesh & Ors., in CWPOA No.5637 of 2019 (Annexure P-7) wherein this Court after having carefully perused the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Jai Dev’s case supra has already held that judgment passed in Jai Dev’s case is judgment in personam not a judgment in rem and same cannot be made applicable mechanically in all cases, especially in those cases where there is positive mandate/direction issued by the Court to pay consequential benefits from due date. In Jai Dev’s case supra, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble Apex Court restricted arrears for three years, but definitely, directions issued vide aforesaid judgment being judgment in persoam, could not be made applicable mechanically in all cases. It would be apt to take note of judgment passed by this Court in Balak Ram case supra, which read as under:- 6. Before adverting to the factual matrix of the case vis-à-vis prayer made in the instant petition, this Court deems it fit to take note of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Jai Dev Gupta, which is as under: "The appellant approached the central Administrative Tribunal for the relief that he is entitled to the pay-scale of Lecturer in Commercial arts though he was appointed to the post of 'Studio Artist'. In addition to that he claimed the difference in the salary from the year 1971. In addition to that he claimed the difference in the salary from the year 1971. He approached the Tribunal for this relief in May. 1989. The Tribunal accepted the claim of the appellant that he should be paid the salary of Lecturer in Commercial Arts though he was appointed to the post of 'Studio Artist' in View of the fact that he was performing the duties of Lecturer in Commercial Arts. However, the Tribunal granted the relief of difference in backwages from May, 1988 only on the ground that under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act the period of one year is prescribed for redressal of grievances. Against the decision of the Tribunal that the appellant is entitled to be paid the salary of Lecturer in Commercial Arts though he was appointed as 'Studio Artist' the respondents have not filed any appeal. The appellant has preferred this appeal claiming the difference in backwages from the date of his posting as Lecturer in Commercial Arts. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that before approaching the Tribunal the appellant was making number of representations to the appropriate authorities claiming the relief and that was the reason for not approaching the Tribunal earlier than May, 1989. We do not think that such an excuse can be advanced to claim the difference in backwages from the year 1971. In Administrator of Union Territory of Daman and Diu & Ors. Vs. R.D. Valand 1995 Supp(4) SCC 593 this court while setting aside an order of Central Administrative Tribunal has observed that the Tribunal was not justified in putting the clock back by more than 15 years and the Tribunal fell into patent error in brushing aside the question of limitation by observing that the respondent has been making representations from time to time and as such the limitation would not come in his way. In the light of the above decision, we cannot entertain the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the difference in backwages should be paid right from the year 1971. At the same time we do not think that the Tribunal was right in invoking Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act for restricting the difference by backwages by one year. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the appellant is entitled to get the difference in backwages from May, 1986. At the same time we do not think that the Tribunal was right in invoking Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act for restricting the difference by backwages by one year. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the appellant is entitled to get the difference in backwages from May, 1986. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. 7. Careful perusal of aforesaid judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court, clearly reveals that the same cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner. Facts in Jai Dev Gupta's case reveal that the petitioner in that case approached Central Administrative Tribunal for the relief that he is entitled to pay scale of Lecturer in Commercial Arts though he was appointed to the post of Studio Artist. Apart from above, petitioner in that case claimed difference in salary from the year 1971 but since for said relief, petitioner approached the Tribunal in the year 1989, as such, Tribunal, while granting relief to the petitioner, restricted the back wages upto May, 1988 on the ground that under S.21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the period of one year is prescribed for redressal of grievance. Against the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, petitioner in that case approached Hon'ble Apex Court. Hon'ble Apex Court, having taken note of the plea of the petitioner that before approaching Tribunal, he made a number of representations to the appropriate authorities claiming the relief, ruled that such excuses cannot be advanced to claim difference in backwages from the year 1971. While placing reliance upon judgment rendered in case Administrator of Union Territory of Daman and Diu v. R.D. Valand, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 593, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court, while setting aside. order of Central Administrative Tribunal, had observed that the Tribunal was not justified in putting the clock back by more than 15 years and that the Tribunal fell into patent error by brushing aside question of limitation by observing that the respondent has been repeatedly representing to the Department, and as such, plea of limitation will not arise, rejected the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner in that case that difference in backwges should be paid right from the year 1971. Apart from above, Hon'ble Apex Court while holding that the Tribunal was not right in invoking S.21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act for restricting backwages for a period of one year, held the petitioner in that case entitled to differences in backwages from the year 1986 i.e. three years prior to filing of the petition. 8. Having carefully perused the aforesaid judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Jai Dev Gupta, this Court finds force in the submission of Mr. M.L. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court is a judgment in personam and not a judgment in rem and as such could not be made applicable to each and every case, especially in the case of the petitioner for effecting recovery of amount already calculated by the respondent authorities as arrears on account of grant of work charge status for the period 1.3.2002 to 31.5.2011. If the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court is read in its entirety, observations and findings returned therein are specifically with reference to provisions contained under S.21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, which prescribe one year limitation for redressal of grievance. 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.” 9. In view of aforesaid judgment, submission made on behalf of respondent-State that judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Jai Dev’s case supra is judgment in rem is negated and as such, instructions if any, issued by Govt. pursuant to directions issued in Jai Dev’s case supra, are of no relevance and cannot be made applicable to deny the admissible dues of an employee. It is not in dispute that aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court in Balak Ram’ case has attained finality because till date, same has been not laid challenge in the superior court of law. 10. It is not in dispute that aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court in Balak Ram’ case has attained finality because till date, same has been not laid challenge in the superior court of law. 10. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law laid down in Balak Ram’s case supra, present petition is allowed and action of respondents in as much as restricting the claim of the petitioner on account of arrears for a period of 3 years prior to filing of representation is held to be bad in law and same is accordingly quashed and set aside and respondents are directed to pay all consequential benefits pursuant to promotion of petitioner to the post of Horticulture Development Officer w.e.f. 15.12.1999, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks, failing which, petitioner would be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.