The main legal point established in the judgment is that the judgment in Hans Raj case was not in personam but in rem, and all similarly situated persons were entitled to the higher pay scale of Rs.1800-3200 after completing 12 years of service as Surveyors.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Sharma, J. - Petitioners herein were appointed as Surveyors in the Department of Irrigation and Public Health (for short 'I &PH') on 20.11.1986 and 24.12.1979 respectively. They became entitled for benefit of senior scale of Rs.1800-3200 on their having completed 12 years regular service as Surveyors. Though, the matter was considered by the Pay Anomaly Committee in its meeting held on 26.6.1995 for grant senior scale of 1800-3200 on completion of 12 years of service as Surveyors in the department of I&PH, but since representation having been filed by the association of the petitioner's was not accepted, person namely Hans Raj and others filed O.A.(D)No.1035 of 1994 in the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, praying therein to direct the respondentState to pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 on completion of 12 years of service, as was given in the case of Surveyors of Agriculture Department. The aforesaid original application was allowed by the Tribunal to the extent that the respondents were directed to obtain the latest position of the scale of Surveyors as granted by the Government of Punjab to the Surveyors of Irrigation Department in compliance to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, and to grant the same scale to the Surveyors in the department of Irrigation and Public Health and Public Works Department in Himachal Pradesh also, within a period of three months.

2. Pursuant to aforesaid directions issued in Hans Raj case (Supra), respondent-State granted pay scale of Rs. 1800- 3200 on completion of 12 years regular service to all the persons, who were working as Surveyors in I & PH department with consequential benefits w.e.f.14.10.1993. Since, benefit in terms of the judgment passed by learned Tribunal in Hans Raj case (supra) was not granted to the person namely, Tilak Raj Sood, he approached this Court by way of CWP No.7330 of 2013, which came to be disposed on 15.11.2013, reserving liberty to above named person to file representation. However, fact remains that petitioner's representation was rejected vide order dated 2.4.2014 on the ground that judgment rendered by learned Tribunal in Hans Raj case (Supra) was in judgment in personam and there was delay. In the aforesaid background, above named person Tilak Raj again filed CWP No. 5709 of 2014, seeking therein direction to the respondents to grant him pay scale of Rs.1800-3200 immediately after completion of 12 years of continuous service in terms of the judgment passed by learned Tribunal in Hans Raj case (Supra). Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the aforesaid petition and directed the respondents to place the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.1800-3200, immediately after completion of 12 years of continuous service as Surveyor/Junior Engineer and release the arrears with interest @ 9% per annum (Annexure P-11).

3. In the aforesaid judgment, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court categorically observed that equals have been treated unequals by the respondents while denying the pay scale of 1800- 3200 to the petitioner i..e Tilak Raj after completion of 12 years of service. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court also clarified that judgment rendered by Tribunal in Hans Raj case (supra) was not in personam and as such, petitioner i.e. Tilak Raj ought to have been granted same relief, which has been granted to his colleagues vide letter dated 10.6.2013. Aforesaid judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has attained finality and as such, petitioners herein also placed reliance upon the same while claiming senior scale of 1800-3200 on their having completed 12 years service as Surveyors/ Junior Engineers. However, fact remains that petitioners despite their having completed 12 years have been not granted aforesaid senior scale of Rs.1800-3200 and as such, they have been repeatedly compelled to approach the court of law for redressal of their grievance.

4. Prior to filing of the petition at hand, petitioners alongwith other simi