Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

(Oral)

By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“i. That the office order dated 01.03.2016 contained in Annexure P-4 whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of pay scale of Rs.800-1455 revised to Rs.2520-4140 has been rejected may kindly be quashed and set aside.

ii. That the respondents may kindly be directed to give the scale of Rs.800-1455 to the petitioner w.e.f. his regularization by further directing the respondents to give the revised scale of Rs.2720-4260 w.e.f. 01.01.1996.”

2. The case of the petitioners is that they were initially engaged on daily wage basis and upon completion of 1.0 years of daily wage service, their services were regularized. According to the petitioners, their serviceHs were regularized in the pay scale of Rs.750-1350/- with an initial start of Rs.770/- per month. At the time of their regularization, they were not aware of the pay scale prescribed for their respective category by the Department and it was only in the year 1998, that a notification was uissued by the Department on 01.09.1998, which waso duly forwarded to all Superintending EngineCers/Executive Engineers, in terms whereof, the pay scale of various categories of employees were revised w.e.f. 01.01.1996. According to the petitioners, they were semi-skilled helpers and they used to operate the machinery installed atH Pump Houses and, therefore, they could not have been equated with the category of General Helpers, who were enjoying the pay scale of Rs.770-1410/-. The petitioners through their Karamchari Sangh represented to the respondent- Department for the grant of the higher pay scale of Rs.800- 1455/-, which stood revised to Rs.2720-4260/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The issue of the non-grant of the pay scale of Rs.800-1455/- with effect from the date of the regulariz.ation of the petitioners and subsequent non-grant of the revised pay scale was agitated by them through AHrajpatrit Karamchari Mahasangh before this Court by way of a writ petition. According to the petitioners, said writ petition was transferred to the Erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.3 of 2015. Said petition was disposed of in terums of Annexure P-3, dated 16.09.2015, vide which, the oauthorities were directed to decide the represCentation, to be filed by the original applicants within the time period prescribed therein. According to the petitioners, thereafter, in terms of Annexure P-4, they was rejected by the authorities on 01.03.2016 and feeling aggrieved, the petitionersH have filed this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners was called upon by the Court to explain the delays and laches in filing the writ petition and further to demonstrate that the original application was filed by the Himachal Pradesh Arajpatrit Karamchari Sangh on behalf of the petitioners, as alleged. The query was specifically put to the learned counsel for the reason that interms of Annexure P-3, the original application was filed. by the Himachal Pradesh Arajpatrit Karamchari Sangh in the year 2003 through its President Sh. JagdHish Kumar Thakur, whereas, Sh. Jagdish Kumar Thakur is not a party petitioner in the present proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though there was nothing to demonstrate that the said proceedings were filed at the behest of the petitioners,but, this was a facut.

4. Aos far as the issue of delay and laches is concerCned, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners being Senior Citizens, were not aware of the intricacies of law and, therefore, they filed the petition whenthey came to know of the passing of the impugned order.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petition otherwise is not maintainable for the reason that, besides being hit by delay and laches, as was also mentioned in the reply, the