Himachal Pradesh High Court
Salig Ram & Others vs H.P. State Forest Development Corp on 31 March, 2023
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No. 4920 of 2021 with CWP
Nos. 6468 to 6472 of 2021
Date of Decision 31st March, 2023
________________________________________________________
1. CWP No. 4920 of 2021
Salig Ram & others ...Petitioners
Versus
H.P. State Forest Development Corp. ....Respondents
2. CWP No. 6468 of 2021
Daya Ram ....Petitioner
Versus
H.P. State Forest Development Corp. ....Respondents
3. CWP No. 6469 of 2021
Bhag Chand ....Petitioner
Versus
H.P. State Forest Development Corp. ....Respondents
4. CWP No. 6470 of 2021
Bhagwan Dass ....Petitioner
Versus
H.P. State Forest Development Corp. ....Respondents
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2023 20:38:15 :::CIS
2
5. CWP No. 6471 of 2021
.
Hari Ram ....Petitioner
Versus
H.P. State Forest Development Corp. ....Respondents
6. CWP No. 6472 of 2021
Kedar Dutt ....Petitioner
7. CWP No. 6473 of 2021
r to
Versus
H.P. State Forest Development Corp. ....Respondents
Sher Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
H.P. State Forest Development Corp. ....Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
______________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate in all petitions.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vinod Kumar Thakur, Advocate in all petitions.
__________________________________________________________________ Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
All these petitions, for involvement and appreciation of common questions of law and facts, are being decided together by this order.
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2023 20:38:15 :::CIS 32 Petitioners, being duly sponsored by different Employment Exchanges, were appointed as Timber/Resin .
Watchers in respondent-H.P. State Forest Development Corporation (in short Corporation) w.e.f. 18.7.1983. Their services were regularized w.e.f. 1.8.1984 vide order dated 11.2.1988. Thereafter, tentative seniority list of Timber/Resin Watchers dated 3.10.1989, as stood on 1.4.1989, was issued. Some of Timber/Resin Watchers represented against the said seniority list. However, without deciding their representation, Corporation issued another seniority list on 25.7.1991, as it stood on 1.4.1991. Some of Timber/Resin Watchers represented against the same.
However, their representation was rejected by Corporation on 9.10.1991.
3 Rejection of representation was assailed by some of Timber/Resin Watchers by filing OA No. 15 of 1992 before H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal').
The said Original Application, vide order dated 3.4.1992, was disposed of by the Tribunal with direction to Corporation to treat the same as an appeal to the Board of Directors of respondent Corporation.
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2023 20:38:15 :::CIS 44 During pendency of appeal before Board of Directors, the Corporation circulated another seniority list .
on 3.6.1993 and also made promotions on the basis of said seniority list by promoting 14 persons to the post of Forest Guards.
5 Grievance of Timber/Resin Watchers was that in their seniority list persons working in other categories like peon, Chowkidar etc. were also included in seniority list of Timber/Resin Watchers whereas according to bye-law 3.4 seniority has to be determined on the basis of length of service in the grade and, therefore, the persons not belonging to grade of Timber/Resin Watchers were not to be included in seniority list of Timber/Resin Watchers.
6 Against the aforesaid omission and commission of Corporation, some of Timber/Resin Watchers filed an OA No. 656 of 1994 before the Tribunal for quashing the seniority list dated 3.6.1993. On abolition of the Tribunal, the said petition was transferred to the High Court and was re-registered as CWP-T No. 2265 of 2008.
7 CWP-T No. 2265 of 2008 was dismissed by theSingle Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 29.3.2010.
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2023 20:38:15 :::CIS 58 Ramesh Chand Sharma and others, some Timber/Resin Watchers similarly situated to present .
petitioners, assailed order dated 29.3.2010 by filing LPA No. 55 of 2010 before the Division Bench of this High Court, which was disposed of on 02.08.2016 directing the respondents to do needful within six weeks from the date of order in terms of para 14 of impugned judgment dated 29.3.2010 passed in CWP-T No. 2265 of 2008.
9 Para 14 of judgment in CWP-T No. 2265 of 2008 reads as under:-
"14. The respondents No. 1 to 3 in their reply have submitted that the seniority list has again been looked into and discrepancies found have been corrected and instructions in this behalf have already been issued to respondent No.2 to correct all the seniority lists and not to include any other category of daily wagers in the seniority of Timber/Resin Watchers (daily wages). Therefore, in view of the stand of respondents No. 1 to 3 in their reply the grievance of the petitioners has been set at rest by respondents No.1 to 3 themselves when it has been stated in the reply that instructions have been issued to respondent No.2 to correct all the seniority lists and not to include any other category of daily wagers in the seniority of Timber/Resin Watchers ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2023 20:38:15 :::CIS 6 (daily wages). Therefore, no separate directions are required from this Court not to include any .
other category of daily wagers in the seniority of Timber/Resin Watchers (daily wages)."
10 For non-compliance of aforesaid directions passed in LPA No. 55 of 2010 Ramesh Chand Sharma filed Execution Petition No. 11 of 2017, whereafter respondent Corporation extended the benefit of judgment passed in LPA No. 55 of 2010 in favour of Ramesh Chand vide Office Order dated 5.10.2020 promoting him as Forest Guard in the pay scale of Rs.950-1800/- w.e.f 29.10.1991 instead of 9.7.2004 with further promotion as Deputy Ranger in the pay scale of Rs.5480-8925/- w.e.f. 18.1.2006 instead of 15.12.2012.
Thereafter, Execution Petition No. 11 of 2017 was disposed of on the basis of statement made by counsel for Ramesh Chand that entire greivance of petitioner was redressed by executing and implementing the judgment in reference.
11 Petitioners made a representation on 10.6.2021 to the Corporation for implementation of judgment passed in LPA No. 55 of 2010 but the said representation was not decided by Corporation whereupon petitioners were constrained to file present writ petitions.
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2023 20:38:15 :::CIS 712 Claim of petitioners is that in para 14 of judgment dated 29.3.2010, passed in CWP-T No. 2265 of .
2008, it was recorded by Single Bench that respondent Corporation, in its reply, had submitted that seniority list was again looked into and discrepancies found therein were communicated to respondent No.2 to correct all seniority lists by not including any other category of daily wagers.
LPA was disposed of on the basis of and in terms of aforesaid submissions/stand of the respondent Corporation and, therefore, the said submissions of Corporation became part of judgment and direction passed by the Division Bench as evident from para 2 and para 4 of judgment passed in LPA No. 55 of 2010.
13 It is the claim of petitioners that judgment passed in LPA No. 55 of 2010 is a judgment in rem and has been pronounced with intention to give benefits to all similarly situated persons on the basis of undertaking/submission of respondent Corporation and, therefore, the said rectification of seniority list was to be carried out by Corporation with respect to all Timber/Resin Watchers but not only with respect to Ramesh Chand Sharma.
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2023 20:38:15 :::CIS 814 It has been contended on behalf of petitioners that delay and latches on the part of petitioners in .
approaching the Court shall not come in their way because judgment in LPA No 55 of 2010 is judgment in rem but not judgment in personam. To substantiate their claim, petitioners have placed reliance on the pronouncement of Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava reported in (2015)1 SCC 347 wherein it has been held as under:-
"22.1 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 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2023 20:38:15 :::CIS 9 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 & Ors. v. Union of India reported in (1997)6 SCC 721). 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."::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2023 20:38:15 :::CIS 10
15 Learned counsel for petitioners has also placed reliance on State of Karnataka and others vs. C. .
Lalitha, reported in (2006)2 SCC 747, wherein it has been observed as under:-
"29. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the Court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently......"
16 In response, claim of petitioners has been opposed on the ground that petition has been filed after a lapse of 35 years and as such, same is not maintainable for delay and latches on their part.
17 In preliminary submission No. 6 of reply, filed by respondent Corporation, decision of Board of Directors taken in furtherance to order passed by the Tribunal, vide memo No. 175, has been referred whereby claim of applicants Ramesh Chand and others was rejected in 1993. In the entire reply, events happened prior to judgment passed in LPA No. 55 of 2010 have been reproduced which are of no relevance as ultimately respondent Corporation has to ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2023 20:38:15 :::CIS 11 comply with directions of Division Bench passed in LPA No. 55 of 2010.
.
18 Crux of reply of the Corporation is that the Corporation has implemented the order passed by Court in its letter and spirit by implementing the same in favour of Ramesh Chand Sharma including others but petitioners are not entitled for that on account of delay and latches.
19 Stand of the Corporation as recorded in para 14 of judgment passed in CWP-T No. 2265 of 2008 depicts that the Corporation was going to correct the discrepancies found in seniority list of Timber/Resin Watchers. On the basis of this stand/assurance, in para 4 of judgment in LPA No. 55 of 2010 direction given to respondent-Corporation to carry out exercise to correct the discrepancies in seniority list of Timber/Resin Watchers accordingly within six weeks from the date of passing of judgment dated 2.8.2016. No inference, in any manner can be drawn to construe that direction passed by the Division Bench was only qua appellants therein as it was not reply of Corporation that it was looking into to draw seniority list by correcting the discrepancy only qua appellants in LPA but not qua others or all. Therefore, judgment in LPA No. 55 of 2010 is a ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2023 20:38:15 :::CIS 12 judgment in rem but not a judgment in personam, and, thus it, for its implementation, shall be squarely covered and .
governed by pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Arvind Kumar Srivastva' case in terms of paras 22.1 and 22.3.
20 Learned counsel for petitioners has also placed reliance upon order dated 17th June, 2022 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Execution Petition No. 19 of 2021 whereby co-petitioners of Ramesh Chand Sharma were held to be entitled for benefit of judgment passed in LPA No. 55 of 2010 and direction was given to extend the benefit in their favour also vide order dated 17th June, 2022.
21 Learned counsel for petitioners have also relied upon pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008)8 SCC 648, wherein claim of petitioners was allowed by Supreme Court even after delay of 16 years but by restricting the relief relating to arrears to only 3 years before the date of writ petition or from the date of demand by observing:-
"7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2023 20:38:15 :::CIS 13 application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is .
based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or re- fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. In so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition."
22 It has been submitted on behalf of petitioners that in view of reply filed to CWP-T No. 2265 of 2008 they were under impression that the Corporation is taking steps ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2023 20:38:15 :::CIS 14 to rectify all discrepancies in seniority list including the discrepancies qua petitioners and after passing of judgment .
in LPA No. 55 of 2010 they were under impression that entire seniority list was to be drawn after rectifying the mistake and, therefore, it has been submitted that they cannot be ousted for alleged delay and latches in filing independent writ petitions and further that omission and commission on the part of Corporation are continuing wrong as it is affecting the petitioners and other similarly situated persons causing losses every month continuously and therefore, petitioners are entitled to file petition at this stage also and at the most in view of pronouncement of the Supreme Court the actual monetary benefits can be restricted by granting benefit from the date of entitlement on notional basis.
23 Learned counsel for Corporation has placed reliance on judgment dated 1.12.2022 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1218 of 2021 whereby claim of petitioners therein was rejected on the ground of delay and latches as well as on account of acquiescence and waiver etc. ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2023 20:38:15 :::CIS 15 24 In present case, though judgment in LPA No. 55 of 2020 is in rem but it is a matter of fact that while others .
were agitating their cause for redressal of their grievances, petitioners were banking upon the result of their litigation and it is not the case of petitioners that all of them had ever represented to the Corporation for redressal of their grievances. As per pleadings, petitioners for the first time, represented to the Corporation on 10 th June, 2021.
Therefore, they shall be entitled for benefit of promotion and further promotion from the due date on the basis of corrected seniority list benefiting them for promotion as Forest Guards as well as Deputy Rangers but their arrears shall be restricted for three years prior to making their representation i.e. 3 years prior to 10.6.2021 and actual arrears of monetary benefits shall be given to them w.e.f.
10.6.2018.
25 In view of above discussion, respondent-
Corporation is directed to implement the judgment dated 2.8.2016 passed in LPA No. 55 of 2010 titled Ramesh Chand Sharma vs. HP Forest Department Corporation and others qua petitioners also by extending them all consequential benefits of promotions, back wages etc. by ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2023 20:38:15 :::CIS 16 promoting them as Forest Guards etc. in the pay scale of Rs.950-1800/- w.e.f. 29.10.1991 and promoting further as .
Deputy Rangers in the pay scale of Rs.5480-8925 w.e.f.
18.1.2006 with all other consequential benefits but restricting actual monetary benefits w.e.f. 10.6.2018, however for the purpose of determining entitlement calculation shall be done from due date by extending benefits on notional basis from due date till 9.6.2001 but thereafter on actual basis from 10.6.2021 and onwards for all intents and purposes. Benefits shall be extended and paid to petitioners on or before 31.07.2023 failing which respondent-Corporation shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum for delayed payment from 10.6.2021 till full and final payment.
26 All petitions stand allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms including all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, in aforesaid terms.
March 31,2023 (Vivek Singh Thakur)
(ms) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2023 20:38:15 :::CIS