JUDGMENT : JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J. 1. In this petition instituted on 26.03.2012, petitioners primarily seek applicability of a decision rendered by learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 30.12.2004 in Original Application No. 627 of 1992 (O.A. in short) as affirmed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court on 23.12.2009 in CWP No. 743 of 2005. In the aforesaid decisions, post of Technical Assistant was held entitled to revised pay scale of Rs. 2000-35000 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. The respondents have implemented the decision only in case of petitioner therein. 2. Background facts leading to institution of instant petition: (i) Petitioners were serving in the respondent-Horticulture Department as Technical Assistants/Statistical Assistants. Nomenclature/designation of the posts held by them was changed to that of Assistant Research Officer. All the petitioners were in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925. (ii) In the Department of Horticulture, there were several categories of posts akin to the post of Technical Assistants/Statistical Assistants etc. (re-designated as Assistant Research Officer) viz. Plant Protection Inspector, Bee Keeping Inspector, Research Assistant, Horticulture Inspector Information, Horticulture Inspector Marketing, Manager-cum-Chemist and Senior Chemical Assistant etc. (iii) On 11.03.1991, the respondent Department carried out an exercise of equating 14 categories of posts as on 01.01.1986 vis-a-vis revision of pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1986. In this office memorandum (Annexure P-3), 14 categories of posts were reflected in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925 as on 01.01.1986. The respondents proposed to give the revised pay scales of Rs. 2000-3500 to all these 14 categories of posts. The Category of Technical Assistants figured at Sr. No. 13 in the office memorandum dated 11.03.1991. Relevant portion of the document is extracted hereinafter: Revision of pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1986 Equation Statement S. No. Category of posts in HP as on 01.01.1986 No of posts Existing scale in Himachal Pradesh Scale already revised in Himachal Pradesh Proposed in H.P. Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Horticulture Inspector 210 700-1200/800-1400 1640-2925/1800-3200 2000- 3500 In the department of Horticulture the seniority of inspectorate posts as well gazetted post is section wise viz. Horticulture Plant Protection, Bee Keeping, Fruit Technology, Hort. Information, Hort. Marketing. 2. Plant Protection Inspector 28 -do- -do- -do- 3. Horticulture Inspector (Marketing) 13 -do- -do- -do- 4. Bee-Keeping Inspector 10 -do- -do- -do- 5. Hort. Inspector (Inf.) 2 -do- -do- -do- 6. Quality Control Inspector/Fruit Preservation Assistant 5 -do- -do- -do- 7. Sr. Horticulture Plant Protection, Bee Keeping, Fruit Technology, Hort. Information, Hort. Marketing. 2. Plant Protection Inspector 28 -do- -do- -do- 3. Horticulture Inspector (Marketing) 13 -do- -do- -do- 4. Bee-Keeping Inspector 10 -do- -do- -do- 5. Hort. Inspector (Inf.) 2 -do- -do- -do- 6. Quality Control Inspector/Fruit Preservation Assistant 5 -do- -do- -do- 7. Sr. Technical Assistant 1 -do- -do- -do- 8. Sr. Technical Assistant, (Plant Protection) 1 -do- -do- -do- 9. Sr. Technical Assistant (Microbiology) 1 -do- -do- -do- 10. Research Assistant 2 -do- -do- -do- 11. Sr. Chemical Assistant 3 -do- -do- -do- Plant Nutrition etc. and hence there is also a variation in the designation of the posts in Punjab the Class-III inspectorate post have been designated as Hort. Deve. 12. Manager-cum-Chemist 7 -do- -do- -do- 13. Technical Assistant 7 -do- -do- -do- 14. Sr. Technical Assistant (F.T.) 7 -do- -do- -do- (iv) The respondent set out to implement the above office memorandum. Notification dated 13.08.1991 (Annexure P-4) was issued, whereby pay scales of 13 out of above mentioned 14 categories were revised to Rs. 2000-3500. However, the category of Technical Assistant, to which the petitioners belonged was left out. It remained in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925. (v) On 05.07.1994 (Annexure P-5), respondents issued a notification giving revised scales of Rs. 1800-3200 to the category of Technical Assistants. (vi) One Sh. Surender Lal, working as Technical Assistant in the respondent-Horticulture Department filed Original Application No. 627 of 1992 before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, seeking enhancement of his pay scale to Rs. 2000-3500 w.e.f. 01.01.1986, so as to bring it at par with other categories of posts which were equated with the post of Technical Assistant and had the same grade on revision of pay scale on three previous occasions. The original Application was allowed on 30.12.2004. Learned Tribunal held that post of Technical Assistant had been equated with the other category of posts (as noticed above); All the categories of posts including that of Technical Assistants were placed in the same pay scales on different occasions consequent upon revision of pay scales from time to time; On 13.08.1991, though the other categories of posts were granted pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 on revision of pay scales, but the petitioner (Technical Assistant Category) continued in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925 (later revised to Rs. 1800-3200). 2000-3500 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 on revision of pay scales, but the petitioner (Technical Assistant Category) continued in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925 (later revised to Rs. 1800-3200). The Tribunal observed that parity required to be maintained in the post had been disturbed to the disadvantage of the petitioner (therein). This discrimination in the revision of pay scale of the post of Technical Assistant held by the petitioner (therein) was held to be in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. The respondents were directed to place the petitioner in the enhanced pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500, at par with other categories of posts. Consequent arrears were to be released to him from period preceding 38 months from the date of order i.e. 30.12.2004. Relevant paras from the judgment are as under: “7. On the same analogy we hold the view that the post of “Technical Assistant” was equated with other posts as stated in the preceding paras and all the categories were placed in the same pay scales on different occasion consequent upon the revision of pay scales viz. 300-750 w.e.f. November 1, 1977, 700-1200 w.e.f. January 1, 1978/August 30, 1980, and then 1640-2925 w.e.f. January 27. 1989. But on August 13, 1991 vide notification Annexure-A/7, the other categories were granted revised pay scale of 2000-3500 instead of 1640-2925 w.e.f. January 1, 1986 on revision of pay scale whereas applicant continued in the scale of 1640-2925. This clearly shows, that the parity which was maintained in the posts earlier was disturbed to the disadvantage of the applicant for whatsoever reason and must be termed as discriminatory and against the principles of “natural justice” and “fair play. In case A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262 , the Apex Court has laid stress on the application of principle of “natural justice and fair play” in administrative proceedings. 8. In case A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262 , the Apex Court has laid stress on the application of principle of “natural justice and fair play” in administrative proceedings. 8. In the given facts and circumstances, we allow the original application and direct the respondents to place the applicant in the enhanced scale of 2000-3500 at par with other categories of post as indicated in preceding Paras and from the same date but payment of arrears of pay shall be restricted to preceding 38 months from the date of the order to be implemented within a period of three months from now.” The respondent’s appeal against the aforesaid judgment in the form of CWP No. 743 of 2005 was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.12.2009, inter-alia, with the observations that when the Pay Commission had recommended same pay scale for all the categories and the Government had also initially granted the same scale to all the categories, but later on granted a pay scale higher than that recommended by the Pay Commission to all the categories except that of the Technical Assistant, there cannot be any justification for not granting the higher pay scale to the left out category of Technical Assistants. The conclusion drawn by the Court is as under:- “9. When the Pay Commission had recommended the same pay-scale for all the categories and the Government had also Initially granted the same scale to all the categories, but later on granted a pay-scale higher than that recommended by the Pay Commission to all the categories, except that of the respondent, i.e. Technical Assistant, there cannot be any justification for not granting the higher pay-scale to the left out category of Technical Assistants. 10. Learned Assistant Advocate General submits that other categories had been re-designated as Assistant Development Officers and, therefore, the same had been given the higher pay-scale. 11. If for the purpose of grant of some higher pay- scale, all other categories had been re-designated, the category of Technical Assistants could have also been re-designated to bring it on par with other categories, in the matter of pay-scale, especially when the Pay Commission recommended the same pay-scale for all the categories. 11. If for the purpose of grant of some higher pay- scale, all other categories had been re-designated, the category of Technical Assistants could have also been re-designated to bring it on par with other categories, in the matter of pay-scale, especially when the Pay Commission recommended the same pay-scale for all the categories. The action of the petitioners in not maintaining parity in the pay-scale and giving higher pay-scale to all other categories, leaving the category of Technical Assistants high and dry, Is discriminatory. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed.” Admittedly, the judgment passed by learned Tribunal on 30.12.2004 as affirmed by this Court on 23.12.2009 stands implemented by the respondent. The petitioner therein (Sh. Surender Lal) was placed in higher pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and consequent arrears have been paid to him in terms of the directions contained in the judgment. It is also not in dispute that his aforesaid pay scale has been subsequently revised from time to time. 3. Present Issue: (i) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that: (i)(a) All the petitioners are similarly situated as the petitioner Sh. Surender Lal in O.A. No. 627 of 1992. There is no factual dissimilarity in the case of the petitioners with the case of Sh. Surender Lal. The petitioners had moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure for their impleadment as parties in CWP No. 743 of 2005. In the application, it was pleaded that petitioners had common and same interest as that of Sh. Surender Lal. The Writ petition was dismissed on 23.12.2009 thereby affirming the decision of the learned Administrative Tribunal in favour of Sh. Surender Lal. With disposal of the Writ Petition, all pending applications were also disposed of. Petitioners’ application for impleadment also got disposed of as no separate order was passed on that application. (i)(b) While implementing the decision, the respondents have confined the benefit of the judgment only to the petitioner in O.A. No. 627 of 1992. This compelled the petitioners to represent to the respondents on 10.08.2010 (Annexure P-13). In the representation, the petitioners emphasized that they were similarly placed as Sh. Surender Lal and were required to be released the same pay scale in the same manner as released in his favour. This compelled the petitioners to represent to the respondents on 10.08.2010 (Annexure P-13). In the representation, the petitioners emphasized that they were similarly placed as Sh. Surender Lal and were required to be released the same pay scale in the same manner as released in his favour. Alongwith the representation, application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC moved by them in the writ petition was also appended. (i)(c) The respondents processed the representation of the petitioners. The Law Department gave its opinion on 02.03.2011, advising the Administrative Department to consider the case of the petitioners on the analogy of ratio of the judgment delivered in the case of Sh. Surender Lal. The Law Department also opined that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the persons like the petitioners situated at par with Sh. Surender Lal, could not be discriminated only on the ground that they did not approach the Court for redressal of their grievances. (i)(d) The Finance Department, however, vide the impugned decision dated 15.11.2011 (Annexure P-15) regretted its inability to concur with the proposal. Hence, the instant Writ Petition was instituted. (ii) The respondents have not disputed above facts. They have, however, tried to justify giving different pay scale to the category of Technical Assistants. On that basis, it was contended by learned Additional Advocate General that petitioners are not entitled to the pay scale claimed by them as it is in the domain of the State to fix the pay scale for a particular category of employees. Reliance was placed upon P.U. Joshi and Others vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 632. 4. Consideration: (i) The petitioners have claimed following substantive reliefs in the writ petition: “(A) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly issue a Writ of certiorari quashing Annexure P 15 letter dated 15.11.2011 vide which the petitioners have been informed that the Finance Department had regretted its inability to concur with the proposal to grant them the benefit of the revised pay scale. This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue the Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to place the record regarding actual decision taken by the Finance Department in this regard thereafter quashing the same by way of Writ of Certiorari. This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue the Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to place the record regarding actual decision taken by the Finance Department in this regard thereafter quashing the same by way of Writ of Certiorari. (B) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent-State to pay the petitioners (Technical Assistants) the revised pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 i.e. w.e.f. 1.1.1986 with all consequential benefits as given to other categories and further direct Respondent-State to confer upon the petitioners the subsequent revisions in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 till date with all consequential benefits including the re-designation of the posts to that of Horticulture Development Officer w.e.f. 24.9.1994 i.e. the date on which the other categories were re-designated as such.” (ii) As already noticed, factual matrix of the case is not in dispute. Learned Tribunal in its judgment dated 30.12.2004, rendered in O.A. No. 627 of 1992 (Surender Lal vs. State of H.P. and Others), has already held that the category of Technical Assistant was enjoying the same pay scale as enjoyed by other categories of posts (mentioned earlier). The pay scales were similarly revised for all these categories of posts from time to time. The other categories of posts were granted revised pay scales of Rs. 2000-3500 w.e.f. 01.01.1986, but the category of Technical Assistant was somehow left out. Resultant discrimination in not releasing the same pay scale to the category of Technical Assistants was illegal and against the principles of natural justice & fair play. The respondents were directed by the Tribunal to place the petitioner (therein)-Sh. Surrender Lal a Technical Assistant in the enhanced scale of Rs. 2000-3500 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 at par with the pay scales enjoyed by the other categories as indicated in the table (extracted above). (iii) The aforesaid decision of the learned Tribunal was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.12.2009 when CWP No. 743 of 2005, instituted by the respondents was dismissed. While dismissing the writ petition, a categorical finding was recorded in the judgment that: “if for purpose of grant of higher pay scale all other categories have been re-designated, the category of Technical Assistant, could have also been re-designated to bring at par with the other categories in the matter of pay scale especially when the Pay Commission recommended the same scale for all categories. The action of the State in not maintaining parity in the pay scale and giving higher pay scale to all other categories leaving the category of Technical Assistants high and dry and is discriminatory.” The Court, thus held that the category of Technical Assistants was entitled for the higher pay scales at par with the pay scales enjoyed by the other categories that were treated equivalent to the category of Technical Assistants. In view of the judgment dated on 23.12.2009 passed in CWP No. 743 of 2005, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have implemented the judgment not only qua Sh. Surender Lal, who was petitioner in O.A. No. 627 of 1992, but in case of other Technical Assistants as well i.e. the present petitioners. The issue before the learned Tribunal was whether category of Technical Assistants was entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 at par with the other categories or not. This issue was decided by the learned Tribunal in favour of Sh. Surender Lal-the petitioner therein who belonged to the category of Technical Assistant. While affirming the aforesaid decision, this Court inter-alia held that it was the category of Technical Assistants that was entitled to the higher pay scales at par with the pay scale enjoyed by other equivalent categories. Though in the ultimate result, learned Tribunal had confined the benefit of enhanced pay scale to the petitioner therein (Sh. Surender Lal), however, a holistic reading of the judgments passed by learned Tribunal and by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court leaves no room for doubt that the judgments for all intent and purposes were delivered in rem and not in personam. The decisions have already adjudicated the issue of admissibility of revised pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 to the incumbents of posts of Technical Assistants w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and consequent revision of this scale from time to time. The issue having already been adjudicated in favour of holders of posts of Technical Assistants, cannot be re-agitated by the respondent-State. This chapter is closed. No submissions were urged by the respondents to dispute the pleaded similarity of the case of petitioners with that of Sh. Surender Lal. Present petitioners (Technical Assistants), therefore, are certainly entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. This chapter is closed. No submissions were urged by the respondents to dispute the pleaded similarity of the case of petitioners with that of Sh. Surender Lal. Present petitioners (Technical Assistants), therefore, are certainly entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. It is also admitted position that the present petitioners had also moved for their impleadment on 14.05.2009 in the Writ petition. No specific order was passed in the application. The Writ petition was disposed of alongwith all pending application (iv) The respondents restricted the implementation of above judgments to the petitioner in O.A. No. 627 of 1992, compelling the petitioners to represent seeking parity of pay scale at par with the pay scale released in favour of Sh. Surender Lal giving all reasons and justifications. The Administrative Department referred the representation for the advice of Law Department. The Law Department advised the Administrative Department to consider the case of the petitioners on the analogy of ratio of the judgment delivered in Sh. Surrender Lal’s case (supra). The Finance Department on 15.11.2011 without giving any reasons whatsoever regretted its inability to concur with the proposal. The decision of the Finance Department is contrary to the basic principles of common service jurisprudence. In the given facts, there cannot be any disparity in pay scales amongst the employees holding the same posts. Sh. Surender Lal and all the petitioners herein were working as Technical Assistants. They were similarly situated. The decision of the issue involved in case of Sh. Surender Lal is squarely applicable to the case of the present petitioners. The issue decided in Sh. Surender Lal’s case cannot be re-agitated now by the respondents. They cannot be allowed to contend that the category of Technical Assistants, to which the petitioners belong, is not entitled to be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and the consequential revision of pay scales based thereupon from time to time. The findings and conclusions drawn in Sh. Surender Lal’s case will operate in rem as essentially the matter pertains to the release of pay scale to the incumbents holding the posts of Technical Assistant. 2000-3500 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and the consequential revision of pay scales based thereupon from time to time. The findings and conclusions drawn in Sh. Surender Lal’s case will operate in rem as essentially the matter pertains to the release of pay scale to the incumbents holding the posts of Technical Assistant. In this regard, it will be appropriate to refer to State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others, (2015) 1 SCC 347 wherein, it was held as under: “22.1 The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. 22.2 However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. 22.3 However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like [See K.C. Sharma and Others vs. Union of India (supra)]. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like [See K.C. Sharma and Others vs. Union of India (supra)]. On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.” Reiterating the above judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court in Chairman/Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and Others vs. Ram Gopal, (2021) 3 SCC 225 held that the State and its instrumentalities are expected to themselves extend the benefit of a judicial pronouncement delivered in rem to all similarly placed employees without forcing each person to individually knock the doors of Courts. Following the decision in Arvind Kumar Srivastava’s case, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4134 of 2022 (Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation) alongwith Civil Appeal Nos. 4135, 4136 and 4137 of 2022, decided on 18th May, 2022, observed that normally as a model employer, on accepting a decision, the employer should uniformly apply and grant benefit to all its similarly situated employees to avoid unnecessary litigation before the Courts. 5. Conclusion: The adjudication of the issue of pay scale admissible to the category of Technical Assistants in Sunder Lal’s case supra was a decision in rem, though the respondents confined the implementation of decision only to the petitioner therein. Be that as it may. The issue of entitlement of Technical Assistant to the revised pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 w.e.f. 01.01.1986, has now attained finality. Equals have to be granted same pay scale. Petitioners are entitled to the pay scale given to their colleague Sh. Surender Lal. The respondents have misdirected themselves in rejecting petitioners’ representation. Consequently, there is merit in this petition and the same is allowed. Impugned decision of the Finance Department dated 15.11.2011 (Annexure P-15) is quashed and set aside. Equals have to be granted same pay scale. Petitioners are entitled to the pay scale given to their colleague Sh. Surender Lal. The respondents have misdirected themselves in rejecting petitioners’ representation. Consequently, there is merit in this petition and the same is allowed. Impugned decision of the Finance Department dated 15.11.2011 (Annexure P-15) is quashed and set aside. Petitioners are held entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. In Surender Lal’s case supra, actual benefit of revised pay scale was conferred upon him from 38 months preceding to the date of pronouncement of the judgment by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Following the same analogy, petitioners herein are held entitled to the benefits of judgment in O.A. No. 627 of 1992 and CWP No. 743 of 2005 i.e. revised pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 from three years prior to the date of filing of this writ petition. They are also held entitled to interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the arrears from the date till actual payment. 6. The pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.