JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. Petitioner [Dharam Pal], a Junior Basic Teacher [now Shastri] has come up before this Court seeking following relief(s):- “(i). That the respondents be directed to provide the pay scale of 4550-7220 to the applicant w.e.f. February, 1998 or from the date same became due to the applicant. (ii). That the respondents may very kindly be directed to pay the penal interest @ 9% to the present applicant on the appears which are due to be paid to the present applicant w.e.f. February, 1998 or from the date same became due to the applicant. (iii). That the respondents may very kindly be directed to pay the salary for the vacation period to the applicant from the date of his joining the FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Precisely the case is that the petitioner served as JBT on contract basis from November 1999 till July 2002, before his appointment as Shastri Teacher on 15.07.2002 where he is continuing as such. Claim of the petitioner is two-fold i.e. firstly, that petitioner may be granted pay as JBT during his contractual period from November 1999 till July 2002 at minimum/initial of pay at Rs.4,550/- plus allowances in pay scale of Rs.4500-7220, in terms of the judgement in CWP(T) No.6037 of 2008 [OA 2154 of 1999], titled as H.P. Rajkiya Prathmik Anubandh Adhyapak Sangh versus State of H.P. and another and COPC No.456/2014 upheld in LPA No.108 of 2012; but the respondents have not given the pay at initial of scale and admissible arrears to petitioner till day, whereas this benefit has been extended to other contract teachers; and secondly, the petitioner may be held entitled for vacation salary during the period of his contractual service as JBT between November1999 to July 2002, in terms of the mandate of this Court in CWP No.415/2000, titled as Baldev Singh & others versus State of H.P. & others , decided on 01.09.2008, but this benefit has not been released to petitioner till day, whereas, this benefit has been extended to other similarly placed incumbents/ teachers and therefore, the denial of benefits to petitioner was discriminating and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of Constitution of India, also. STATEMENT BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER QUA RELIEF NO.(I): 3. STATEMENT BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER QUA RELIEF NO.(I): 3. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that so far as relief No.(i) is concerned, regarding the grant of pay at initial/minimum of pay scale of Rs.4550-7220/- at Rs.4550 + allowances, during the period of contractual service rendered as JBT [w.e.f. November 1999 till July 2002] the instant matter is covered by the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Rajkiya Prathmik Anubandh Adhyapak Sangh versus State of H.P. and another [CWP(T) No.6037 of 2008 [OA 2154 of 1999]upheld in LPA No.108 of 2012 and the order in Jasmeet Singh’s case [ Execution Petition No.423 of 2023 , dated 12.08.2024] and in Execution Petition No.423 of 2023 , titled as Jasmeet Singh & another versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others along with connected matters, decided on 12.08.2024, reads as under:- “2. Petitioners were appointed teachers/ lecturers on contract basis in pursuance to the Contract Policy formulated and circulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide communication No.PA-10/96- cont.96-97 (DEO) dated 08.10.1996. In the said Policy, wages to contract appointees was provided as under:- “2. Keeping in view the judgments of various High Courts/Supreme Court the Govt. have decided that all appointments of teaching staff in the schools against short term/leave vacancies shall be on contractual basis and it has been decided to pay full wages at the minimum of the scale including allowances to the teachers appointed on contractual basis.” 3. In the year 1998, before revision of pay scale, minimum pay scale of JBT, TGT, PGT/Lecturer were 1200/-, 1640/- and 1800/- respectively. On revision of pay scale in the year 1998, w.e.f. 1.1.1996, minimum pay scale of JBT, TGT and PGT/Lecturers was revised to 4550/-, 5480/- and 6400/- respectively. It was further revised w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as 5910/-, with initial start of 11,470/-, 10,300/- with initial start of 14,430/- and 10,300/- with initial start of 16,290/- respectively. 4. On revision of pay scale of employees of State of H.P., respondents continued to pay salary/wages to the petitioners and other contract teachers on the basis of unrevised pay scale plus allowances. Whereas, petitioners and other contract teachers claimed that they were entitled for salary/wages on the basis of revised pay scale, i.e minimum of pay scale to the post plus allowances as applicable to JBTs, TGTs and PGTs/Lecturers at relevant point of time. 5. Whereas, petitioners and other contract teachers claimed that they were entitled for salary/wages on the basis of revised pay scale, i.e minimum of pay scale to the post plus allowances as applicable to JBTs, TGTs and PGTs/Lecturers at relevant point of time. 5. An association of JBTs ‘H.P. Rajkiya Prathmik Anubandh Adhyapak Sangh’ had filed CWP(T) No.6037 of 2008, which was allowed by learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 30.11.2010 in following terms:- “6. In view of the above, the petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to grant to the members of the petitioner-Union the revised pay scale of 4550-7220 by fixing them at the lowest level i.e. at 4550 plus allowances as admissible from time to time along with consequential benefits within six months from today, failing which interest at the rate of 9% shall also be payable. Needless to say that salary for the period of vacations shall also be payable to the members of the petitioner-Union in the light of this judgment within the same time as above.” 6. The aforesaid judgment was assailed by the State of Himachal Pradesh by filing LPA No.108 of 2012, which was tagged with another LPA No.105 of 2010. 7. Prior to decision in CWP(T) No. 6037 of 2008, in another similar petition CWP(T) No.781 of 2008, titled Rakesh Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, preferred by a contract teacher, another learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 15.06.2010 had held that contract teachers/JBTs were entitled for running pay scale instead of minimum pay scale of basic pay at fixed rate. The issue with respect to the allowances was not in dispute. 8. The aforesaid judgment dated 15.06.2010 passed in CWP(T) No.781 of 2008, was assailed by the State by filing LPA No.105 of 2010. 9. Both LPA Nos.105 of 2010 and 108 of 2012 were decided together, alongwith other connected matters, by the Division Bench of this High Court vide judgment dated 13.12.2012 with following operative part:- “18. In the above circumstances, the appeals and the writ petitions are disposed of as follows: The direction in the judgment in Rakesh Chand’s case in CWP (T) No. 781 of 2008 for granting the running pay scale to the JBT teachers from the date of their initial appointment is set aside. In the above circumstances, the appeals and the writ petitions are disposed of as follows: The direction in the judgment in Rakesh Chand’s case in CWP (T) No. 781 of 2008 for granting the running pay scale to the JBT teachers from the date of their initial appointment is set aside. However, it is held that the JBT teachers appointed on contract basis will be entitled to the initial of the pay scale attached to the post of JBT teachers and revised from time to time. It is also clarified that the principle that is applied in the case of the JBT teachers in equal force would apply to the School Lecturers appointed on contract basis. LPA No. 108 of 2012 is dismissed. All other appeals are partly allowed and the writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.” 10. Therefore, in LPA No.105 of 2010 and LPA No.108 of 2012, it was held that JBTs appointed on contractual basis are not entitled for running pay scale, but instead they are entitled for initial of the pay scale attached to the post of JBTs revised from time to time. As LPA No.108 of 2012 was dismissed, therefore judgment in CWP(T) N0.6037 of 2008 was upheld and resultantly contract JBT teachers were held entitled for minimum of pay scale as revised time to time plus allowances admissible on date. It was further observed that the same shall be applicable to the school Lecturers appointed on contact basis. 22. In view of above, present petitions are disposed of with direction to the Director Higher Education, H.P., including concerned Principals to ensure complete compliance within two weeks positively. 23. Needless to say, petitioners shall have liberty to avail appropriate remedy for redressal of grievance, if any, still survives, including filing fresh petition(s). Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.” STATEMENT BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER QUA RELIEF (III): 3(i). Learned Counsel for petitioner further submits that so far as relief No.(iii) is concerned, regarding claim for vacation salary, the matter in issue is covered by the judgment of this Court in CWP No.415 of 2000 , titled as Baldev Singh & Others versus State of H.P. & others , decided on 01.09.2008, directing release of salary for vacation period to contractual employees. 4. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, that the petitioner shall be satisfied in case, the State Authorities are directed to examine the case and grant the benefits of (i) minimum/initial of pay at Rs.4550/- and allowances upon revision of scales as JBT (Contract) from November 1999 to July 2002 in terms of mandate of law in case of Rajkiya Prathmik Anubandh Adhyapak Sangh, reinforced in Jasmeet Singh’s ; case and (ii) vacation salary in terms of the judgment in Baldev Singh’s case, without any discrimination when, the benefit of these Judgments have been extended to JBT’s and to other categories of contract teachers throughout the State. 5. Per contra, Learned State Counsel submits that the State Authorities shall examine the case of petitioner, except for the delay. 5. Per contra, Learned State Counsel submits that the State Authorities shall examine the case of petitioner, except for the delay. Above plea of Learned State Counsel in invoking delay, is untenable, on facts as well as law, for the reason, that the judgment in case of Rajkiya Prathmik Anubandh Adhyapak Sangh [CWP(T) No.6037/2008 was a judgment in rem; and secondly, after the passing of this judgment, the State Authorities were bound to extend benefits to all concerned in letter and spirit but the State Authorities- Respondents have adopted/applied a pick and choose criteria, in extending the benefit of judgment to some but in denying it to others; and thirdly, though the petitioner is similarly placed alike petitioners in aforesaid decided case, therefore, the denial of benefits to the petitioner amounts to hostile discrimination, violating Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India; and fourthly, the action of Respondent-Department in adopting different yardsticks in implementing the judgment in Rajkiya Prathmik Anubandh Adhyapak Sangh by extending benefits to some of its favourites despite the fact that even the Finance Department has granted approval on 16.08.2016 and the even the communication dated 03.03.2017 [Para 2 of Reply- Affidavit] to implement it; and fifthly, the half cooked implementation of the judgment by extending benefit to some of the contractual employees either due to judicial intervention and even otherwise amounts to malice in law; and sixthly, when, this judgment had attained finality and its intent has been reinforced by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jasmeet Singh’s (supra) case on 12.08.2024; and seventhly, the deliberate and intentional non- performance and the inaction or lethargy of the State Authorities has resulted in treating equals as unequal by violating the fundamental rights of petitioner; and eighthly, the litigation policy of the State approves conferment of similar treatment to all incumbents, being a model employer, which has also been ignored, in the instant case; and ninthly, once the judgment in case of Rajkiya Prathmik Anubandh Adhyapak Sangh conferring benefit of minimum/initial of pay at Rs.4,550/- in revised scale at Rs.4550-7220 to contract appointees and the judgment in case of Baldev Singh is a judgment in rem conferring benefit of vacation salary to contractual employees, then, the pleas of delay-laches cannot be permitted to be invoked by the State Authorities, when, the State Authorities have extended benefit of these judgments to other similarly placed JBTs-contract appointees and also to other categories of contract teachers i.e. Lecturer’s, C&V etc; and tenthly, the plea of delay & laches cannot be invoked so as to defeat the mandate of judgments which are in rem: as per the law, in K. Thimappa and others versus Chairman, Central Board of Directors, State Bank of India and Another (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 259, State of Uttar Pradesh and Others versus Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 347; and affirmed by the Hon’ble Three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Chairman/ Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and Others versus Ram Gopal (2021) 13 Supreme Court Cases 225; and eleventhly, the action of State Authorities in depriving the petitioner of the fruits of the judgments which were binding on the State and were to be uniformly applied is uncalled for when the Respondents-State Authorities have granted both these benefits to many other JBT’s and also to other categories of contract teachers; and lastly, the denial of benefits has resulted in civil consequences and hostile discrimination and also amounts to rendering the mandate of the judgments in rem nugatory or otiose, which cannot be permitted to be done by Respondents. Accordingly, in totality of facts and circumstance and the discussion made hereinabove, the plea of delay-laches raised by Learned State Counsel which is disallowed/turned down; and the Respondents-State Authorities are directed to examine/verify the facts and thereafter to extend similar treatment to the petitioner in the light of aforesaid Judgments without discrimination, so that equals are treated equally and not unequally, in the spirit of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS: 6. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, and as prayed by Learned Counsel for petitioner, this Court disposes of the instant petition, in the following terms: (i). Respondents-State Authorities are directed to examine the case of the petitioner on merits, for benefit of pay at minimum/initial of pay [at Rs.4550/- plus allowances on revision of pay scales to Rs.4550-7220/-] as JBT, on contract w.e.f. November, 1999 till July 2002 in terms of the made of law in Rajkiya Prathmik Anubandh Adhyapak Sangh [CWP(T) No.6037 of 2008 [OA 2154 of 1999], dated 30.11.2010 and in COPC No.456 of 2014 and upheld in LPA No.108 of 2012 and the orders in Execution Petition No.423 of 2023 , titled as Jasmeet Singh another versus State of H.P. & others along with connected matters , decided on 12.08.2024; without discriminating the petitioner vis-a-vis similarly placed Junior Basic Teachers and other incumbents, within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified/downloaded copy of this judgment; (ii). Respondents-State Authorities are directed to examine the case of petitioner for grant of salary for vacation period, in terms of mandate of this Court in CWP No.415 of 2000 , titled as Baldev Sigh & Others versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others , decided on 01.09.2008, without discriminating the petitioner; within the same period as in (i) above; (iii). Upon consideration, the Respondents-State Authorities are directed to release admissible benefits, as in direction Nos.(i) & (ii), above; as has been extended to other similarly placed contractual employees, without discrimination, with all consequential benefits within the same period as in (i) supra; (iv). Parties to bear respective costs. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition is disposed of and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.