V.S. Aggarwal, J. - (1.) BY this common judgment, Civil Writ Petition No. 16038 of 1998; 1116 of 1999 and 961 of 2000 can conveniently be disposed of together as the facts in all these writ petitions are identical. We are taking the facts from Civil Writ Petition No. 16038 of 1999.
(2.) THE petitioners were appointed in the Haryana Education Service Class -II (School Cadre) by way of direct recruitment. They were promoted to H.E.S. Class I in School Inspection Cadre from different dates given below. All of them have since retired. They had joined service in the erstwhile State of Punjab. The Punjab Education Service Class II was a unified cadre consisting of Senior Lecturers, Assistant Directors, Principals of Higher Secondary Schools and district Inspectors. The said cadre was consisting of members of the teaching staff of schools as well as colleges. In the year 1961, the Punjab Education Service Class -II was bifurcated into two separate cadres, namely, School Inspection Cadre and College Cadre, and separate seniority lists were framed. This Court had quashed the said bifurcation of the cadre. From 1.11.1966, the State of Haryana had been carved out. The Government of Haryana revised the pay scale of Rs. 700 -1100 in school side. There was no corresponding provision in the college cadre. A writ petition was filed and in that writ petition this Court directed that same pay scale should be given to members of the service in the college cadre. Vide order dated 24.2.1988, the pay scale of Class I and Class II officers in college side were revised w.e.f. 1.12.1985 and Class II officer were granted the pay scale of Rs. 1200 -1840 while Class -I officers were granted the pay scale of Rs. 1200 -1900 in the college side from 1.12.1985. In the School Cadre, Class -II officers were granted the pay scale of Rs. 1200 -1700 and Class -I Officers were given the pay scale of Rs. 1200 -1860. The said order was challenged and this Court in the case of Pushpa Abrol etc. v. State of Haryana, 1991(4) Services Law Reporter 765, had allowed the writ petition. The petitioners stated that Letters Patent Appeal was also dis - missed. This Court directed that upto 11.4.1986, Class I and Class II officers of the School Cadre as well as College Cadre should be treated at par. The petitioners claimed that, in view of the said decision, they were entitled to the similar treatment and they should be granted the pay scale of Rs. 3700 -5700 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 as has been done in other cases. 3. In the written statement filed, pleas have been controverted. It has been asserted that the petition is highly belated. Furthermore, it is the case of the respondents that the petitioners belong to the cadre of School and Inspection side and retired as HES -I. They have no parity with that of College Teachers because, as per provision of Clause -II of University Grant Commission notification dated 27.1.1976, the revised pay scales granted to the officers of College Cadre were not admissible to Class -II officers of Schools Cadre. The seniority of Class -II officers of School and College Cadre was common upto 11.4.1986. Thereafter, new rules governing the officers of College Cadre came into being, but their qualifications and mode of recruitment were different. Their nature of work, pay scale and avenue of promotion are also different. It had been asserted that in the erstwhile State of Punjab, Punjab Education Service Class -II was a combined cadre of Class -II officers consisting of Senior Lecturers borne on college side and Deputy District Education Officers and Principals of Government Higher Secondary Schools working on school and inspection side. The service conditions of the same were governed as per rules known as Punjab Education Services (Class -II) Rules, 1934. After the State of Haryana was formulated, on 5.1.1968 the Government revised the pay scales of teachers working in schools on the recommendations of the Kothari Commission w.e.f. 1.12.1967. The action of the government releasing the pay scales of Rs. 700 -1100 from earlier dates to the officers working on school and inspection side was challenged on the ground that they should be released the grade of Rs. 700 -1100 from the dates their juniors working on the School and Inspection side have got it. Meanwhile, on the recommendation of the U.G.C., the pay scales of Lecturers Senior Lecturers were revised to Rs. 700 -1600 w.e.f. 1.1.1973 vide government order dated 27.1.1976. According to this sanction, higher qualifications for the post of college teachers were also fixed on 17.3.1978. The Government also conferred Class -11 Gazetted status to the Lecturers in Government Colleges. It is denied that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of decision in Smt. Pushpa Abrol's case, referred to above, and pointed out that this Court on 28.9.1995 limited the judgment dated 7.6.1991 to the extent that the relief granted to the petitioner would be limited only upto April 11, 1986. 4. It is not in controversy that the writ petition is belated. The petitioners are claiming higher pay scale for the past two decades but it need not deter us because the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Saroj Kamarl and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 1998(3) R S J 350 :, 1998(3) SCT 664 (P&H)(FB), has already set the controversy at rest. A similar question came up for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court and it was held as under: "For the foregoing reasons we are of the view that in cases where, only fixation of pay according the relevant rules/instructions or a judgment is prayed for, the writ petition cannot be dismissed at the threshold on the ground of delay and laches but the payment of arrears can be restricted to a reasonable period. Three years and two months would be considered a reasonable period as that is the period for which a person can ask for the payment of arrears before a Civil Court." Keeping in view the said decision of the Full Bench, we have no hesitation in concluding and holding that the relief cannot be refused on the ground of delay when there is a matter of refixation but the same can be couched in the language that arrears can be confined accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case.
(4.) SIMILARLY , the matter in question, in fact, had, admittedly, been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 348 of 1992 titled The State of Haryana v. Smt. Pushpa Abrol and others, decided on 8.9.1995. Similarly situated persons had filed a writ petition which had been allowed. The State of Haryana came up in Letters Patent Appeal wherein Division Bench of this Court held as under: " ......It shall be further seen that when the State of Punjab was reorganised w.e.f. November 1, 1966, the matter of revision of scales of pay of the teaching personnel in Government schools was taken up by the State Government and after considering the recommendations made by the Kothari Commission, it was decided in the year 1967 to revise the pay scales of school lecturers to Rs. 700 -1100 w.e.f. November 1,1966. This revised scale was sanctioned for 87 posts only for the school lecturers to be granted as per their seniority in the service. Those, who were working as lecturers in Government colleges and were members of the service, challenged the revision of pay scale limited to persons in service in the school cadre and the same was allowed. The State agitated the matter by way of Letters Patent Appeal which came to be disposed of on October 19, 1993 in the State of Punjab v. B.S. Bhimber, 1993(4) SLR 4 :, 1994(1) SCT 825 (P&H). Against this order as well, as appeal was carried before the Supreme Court (S.L.P. No. 26656 of 1994) and concededly, even that appeal has been dismissed on September 2,1994. It shall, thus, be seen that at no given time the pay scales of HES Class -II and I were different. The parity was maintained all through either by the Government itself or by orders of the Court. The matter now may be different as by proper legislation separate college cadre service Rules have been framed. The distinction now sought to be spelled out on the basis of educational qualification for eligibility to appointment in school cadre and the college cadre, as mentioned above, is too late, The appeal is, thus, devoid of merit and is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. It is, however, made clear that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge would be limited to the relief granted to the petitioners only upto April II, 1986 i.e. the date when the Haryana Education (College Cadre) Group A Service Rules, 1986 came into existence. Petitioners shall be entitled to the relief asked for by them in the writ petition from the date their juniors were given the higher pay scale." On behalf of the State of Haryana, it was pointed out that this judgment should not bind the State because written statement even had not been filed and there was no proper representation when judgment of the learned Single Judge was pronounced. We have no hesitation in rejecting the said argument. When fair opportunity was given and the matter was adjudicated then the judgment would necessarily bind the State. While filing the Letters Patent Appeal, no such plea seemingly had been raised. This shows clearly that Smt. Pushpa Abrol's case had become final inter se those parties.;