The delay in seeking revision should not defeat the petitioner's right, and the claim for arrears can be restricted to a reasonable period.

JUDGMENT

Shekher Dhawan, J. - Present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to revise the Pay SCALE of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.11.1971 instead of 16.07.1975 with further prayer to fix the pay scale of such petitioner whose unrevised pay falls between two stages in new time scale in the revised pay scale in the next stage, as per law laid down by this Court in CWP No. 2208 of 1989, Lekh Raj Khera and Others Vs. State of Punjab and another, decided on 24.03.2009 (Annexure P/8) and as per law laid down by this Court and Hon'ble Apex Court that once benefit is granted by the Hon'ble Court to the similarly situated persons, the same should also be granted to other similarly situated persons, though they not have approached the Court.

2. As per the petitioner, he had joined as a Teacher in the Education Department and retired after attaining the age of superannuation. The Government of India had appointed the "Kothari Commission" to recommend the pay structures, methods of recruitment, training and qualifications and all other allied matters, improvement of the education in the country. The Kothari Commission submitted its report and recommended the pay scales scales for various categories of teachers and also recommended that the Government should revise the pay scales of all the categories of the Teachers after 5 years. The Punjab Government accepted the recommendations of the Kothari Commission and ordered for its implementation. The teachers, though were not satisfied to accept thje same, as they believed that with the revision of their pay scales after five years with effect from 1.11.1971, the anomaly would automatically disappear. As per the petitioner, the respondents discriminated the teachers in implementation of the recommendations when they revised the pay scales of Classical and Verna cular [C&V] Teachers alone. The petitioner was placed in dis-advantageous position when the C&V Teachers, who were holding the lower post than the Masters, were allowed annual increment of Rs. 10/- in the revised pay scale from the stage of Rs. 240/- to Rs. 350/- and from Rs. 220/- to Rs. 340/- and number of writ petitions were filed including CWP No. 2208 of 1989, Lekh Raj Khera and Others Vs. State of Punjab and another, and the said writ petitionw as disposed of vide order dated 24.03.2009 (Annexure P/8). On receipt of such information, the petitioner also made a request to the respondents to fix his pay with effect from 1.11.1971 vide representation dated 5.7.2009 (Annexure P/9). Similarly situated employees also approached this Court by filing CWP-18675-2009 and the same was also allowed, but the claim of the petitioner has not been considered and as such, the present writ petition before this Court.

3. In reply filed by way of affidavit on behalf of both the respondents, plea was taken that the petitioner joined the Education department on 26.10.1965 and he retired on 31.08.2013. However, the petitioner had not made any representation for grant of pay scale w.e.f. 1- 11-1971 instead of 16.7.1975 except for the one submitted on 5.7.2009 (Annexure P/9) i.e., after his retirement. The petitioner cannot agitate the issue after considerable delay. More so, the cause of action had arisen when CWP-2208-1989 which was admitted on 24.03.2009 and as per decision of Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in Saroj Kumari and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others , (1998) 3 SCT 664, if a person approaches the Court after reasonable time, the same is liable to be rejected. Plea was also taken in the reply of the respondents that as the petitioner belonged to JBT cadre, he is not identically placed and as such, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and appraisal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the present case has checkered long drawn history. There w