Pradeep Kumar Kapoor And Ors. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~65
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2946/2026 & CM APPL. 14200/2026
PRADEEP KUMAR KAPOOR AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sourabh Ahuja and Mr.
Keshav Singh, Advs.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Dr. Divya Swamy, SC with Ms.
Akriti Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 19.05.2026
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
1
1. The present writ petition arises out of order dated 31.01.2025
2
passed in Original Application No. 3834/2017, whereby the learned
3
Central Administrative Tribunal had allowed the aforesaid O.A. and
directed the Respondent to re-fix the Grade Pay of the Petitioners on
notional basis and pension order but restricted the arrears to only for
three years preceding the date of filing of the said O.A. in light of the
decision of the Hon’b1e Supreme Court in Union of India and Others
4
v. Tarsem Singh .
1
“Impugned order”, hereinafter
2
“OA”, hereinafter
3
“Tribunal”, hereinafter
4
(2008) 8 SCC 648
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:21.05.2026
14:38:32
W.P.(C) 2946/2026 Page 1 of 17
2. The Petitioners have assailed the Impugned Order only to the
extent of the direction passed by the learned Tribunal of restricting the
benefit to only three years preceding the filing of the underlying O.A.
3. The facts leading to the filing of the O.A. No. 3834/2017 are set
out below.
4. The Petitioners were initially appointed as Vaccinators, the post
5
which was subsequently re-designated as Public Health Inspectors in
the office of the Respondent.
5. As per the office order dated 31.05.2005 issued by the
Respondent, the pay scales of the supervisory staff stood revised in
th 6
terms of the recommendations of the 5 Central Pay Commission with
effect from 01.01.1996. In pursuance thereof, the posts of Vaccination
Inspector (now PHIs) and Vaccinator (now PHIs) were placed in the
pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000.
6. Before filing the underlying O.A., the Petitioners had earlier
approached the learned Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 3783/2012 seeking
implementation of the aforesaid revised pay scale with effect from
01.01.1996 and challenged the action of the Respondent in refixing
their pay and effecting recovery from their salaries.
7. The earlier O.A. came to be allowed vide the order dated
17.02.2015, directing the Respondent to restore the pay scale of the
5
“PHIs”, hereinafter
6
“CPC”, hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:21.05.2026
14:38:32
W.P.(C) 2946/2026 Page 2 of 17
Petitioners to the Rs. 5000-8000, refund the amounts already recovered
from their salaries and grant all consequential benefits arising
therefrom.
8. However, due to non-compliance of the directions contained in
order dated 17.02.2015 passed in the earlier O.A. No. 3783/2012, the
Petitioners were constrained to initiate contempt proceedings before the
learned Tribunal.
9. During the pendency of the said contempt, the Respondent issued
office order dated 03.05.2016, whereby, the Grade Pay of the
Petitioners was revised from Rs. 4200/- to Rs. 4600/- with effect from
01.01.2006/08.09.2006 and thereafter to Rs. 4800/- with effect from
01.09.2008/08.09.2012 under the ACP/MACP Scheme. In view of the
said compliance, the contempt petition came to be disposed of vide
order dated 18.1.2017.
10. However, the matter did not rest there for the Petitioners. Their
grievance arose again when they came to know, that although their
Grade Pay had been fixed at Rs. 4800/- and their pensionary and
terminal benefits had been worked out on that basis, similarly situated
employees and even juniors to them had been granted Grade Pay of Rs.
5400/-. It is this alleged anomaly, which gave rise to the present round
of litigation.
11. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the Petitioners
submitted representations dated 08.08.2017 and 10.08.2017 seeking re-
fixation of their Grade Pay and pensionary benefits.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:21.05.2026
14:38:32
W.P.(C) 2946/2026 Page 3 of 17
12. Petitioners’ specific grievance was that they had been granted
Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- and thereafter Rs. 4800/- under the
ACP/MACP Scheme. However, they were, in fact, entitled to Grade
Pay of Rs. 4800/- towards the first and second financial upgradations
under the ACP Scheme and further Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- upon grant
of the third financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme on
completion of the requisite period of service.
13. According to the Petitioners, by restricting their Grade Pay only
up to Rs. 4800/-, the Respondent had adversely affected not only their
pay fixation but also their retiral and pensionary benefits, despite their
juniors to them drawing higher Grade Pay.
14. When no action was taken on the aforesaid representations, the
Petitioners filed the O.A. No. 3834/2017, the decision of which is
challenged before us.
15. In the said O.A., the Petitioners sought directions to the
Respondent to grant them Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- upon completion of
thirty years of service under the MACP Scheme and accordingly re-
fixation of their pay, pension and terminal dues by treating Grade Pay
of Rs. 5400/- as their last drawn Grade Pay, along with consequential
arrears and interest thereon.
16. The learned Tribunal, vide order dated 31.01.2025, allowed the
aforesaid O.A. by observing that the Petitioners had not been granted
Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/-, whereas, similarly situated employees and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:21.05.2026
14:38:32
W.P.(C) 2946/2026 Page 4 of 17
even juniors to them had already been extended the said benefit and,
therefore, the Petitioners, being seniors, could not be denied similar
treatment.
17. The learned Tribunal, accordingly, directed the Respondent to re-
fix the Grade Pay of the Petitioners on notional basis and revise their
pensionary benefits accordingly.
18. However, while granting the aforesaid relief, the learned
Tribunal while relying upon the judgment in Tarsem Singh (supra)
observed that since the Petitioners had approached the learned Tribunal
only in the year 2017, the consequential arrears deserved to be restricted
to a period of three years prior to filing of O.A. No. 3834/2017. In other
words, although the entitlement of the Petitioners to the higher Grade
Pay stood recognised, the monetary benefits flowing therefrom were
curtailed on the ground of alleged delay.
19. Being aggrieved by the restriction of benefits to only three years
preceding to filing of the said O.A., the Petitioners have approached this
Court by means of the present writ petition.
20. Mr. Ahuja, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioners, submits that the learned Tribunal erred in restricting the
arrears to a period of three years prior to filing of the O.A. despite
having returned a categorical finding that the Petitioners were entitled
to the higher Grade Pay and consequential revision of pensionary
benefits. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:21.05.2026
14:38:32
W.P.(C) 2946/2026 Page 5 of 17
7
Court in Keraleeya Samajam v. Pratibha Dattatray Kulkarni ,
particularly paragraphs 4 to 6 thereof, wherein it was observed that once
entitlement to revised pay is established, it becomes the obligation of
the employer to extend the said benefit and employees cannot be
compelled to repeatedly approach the authorities for grant of lawful
dues.
21. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in placing
reliance upon Tarsem Singh (supra) , as there was no delay on the part
of the Petitioners in approaching the learned Tribunal. It is pointed out
that the benefits were granted vide order dated 03.05.2016 and, upon
noticing the discrepancy in fixation of Grade Pay and pensionary
benefits, the Petitioners promptly submitted representations, and
thereafter, approached the learned Tribunal in the year 2017 itself.
22. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent submits that the claims raised by the Petitioners essentially
pertained to implementation of benefits arising out of the 6th CPC with
effect from 01.01.2006, whereas the Petitioners chose to agitate the
issue only in the year 2017 i.e. after a delay of 11 years. According to
the Respondent, the Petitioners accepted the fixation granted by office
order dated 03.05.2016 and sought further enhancement after a delay of
a year in 2017, and therefore had acquiesced in the earlier fixation for
a considerable period of time.
7
2021 SCC OnLine SC 853
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:21.05.2026
14:38:32
W.P.(C) 2946/2026 Page 6 of 17
23. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal had rightly
applied the principle laid down in Tarsem Singh (supra) , which permits
grant of relief in matters relating to pay fixation and pension despite
delay, while restricting consequential arrears to a period of three years
preceding the proceedings.
24. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.
25. In light of the rival submissions advanced before us, the only
issue which arises for our consideration is whether the learned Tribunal
was justified in restricting the arrears payable to the Petitioners to three
years prior to the filing of the O.A. before the learned Tribunal.
26. Mr. Ahuja essentially set up his case by placing reliance upon
Keraleeya Samajam (supra) . Accordingly, the relevant paras of the
said decision are noted hereunder for our consideration-
“ 4. Therefore the entitlement of the teacher's salaries as per the
th th
5 and 6 Pay Commission to the teaching and non-teaching staff of
the second petitioner - school is not required to gone into and only
issue which is required to be considered is whether the arrears ought
to have been restricted to three years preceding the filing of the writ
petition?
5. Having heard Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents and considering orders
passed in earlier round of litigations which ended up to this court
the liability of the management to pay the salaries to the teaching
th th
and non-teaching staff as per the 4 Pay Commission and 5 Pay
Commission ended in favour of the teaching and non-teaching staff
th
working with the petitioners. Therefore as and when the 6 Pay
Commission recommendations was made applicable as such it was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:21.05.2026
14:38:32
W.P.(C) 2946/2026 Page 7 of 17
the duty cast upon the petitioners' institution to pay the salary/wages
to the teaching and non-teaching staff as per the applicable pay
th
scale as per the 6 Pay Commission recommendation and for which
the staff was not required to move before the Deputy Director
(Education) again and again. Therefore, the submissions on behalf
of the petitioners that as the respondents approached the Deputy
Director (Education) subsequently and therefore the question with
respect to the limitation will come into play and therefore the
respondents shall be entitled to the arrears of last three years
preceding the filing of the writ petitions cannot be accepted.
6. The respondents were compelled to approach the Deputy
Director only when the petitioners though were required to pay the
wages as per the applicable rules and as per the recommendation of
th
6 Pay Commission, failed to make the payment, the respondents
were compelled to approach the Deputy Director (Education)
thereafter. Therefore for the lapse and inaction on the part of the
petitioners, the respondents cannot be made to suffer and deny the
th
arrears of the salaries as per the 6 Pay Commission
recommendation, which otherwise they are entitled to. Every time
the teachers were not supposed to approach the appropriate
authority for getting the benefit as and when there is a revision of
pay as per the pay commission recommendations.”
(emphasis supplied)
27. Our reading of the aforesaid decision indicates that the same was
rendered in the context of a claim relating to arrears flowing from
implementation of the 6th CPC. The principal issue before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court was similar to the present case i.e. whether the arrears
could be restricted to three years on the ground that the employees had
approached the authorities belatedly.
28. While dealing with the said issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in
clear terms, emphasised that once the revised pay scales under the 6th
CPC became applicable, the obligation to correctly implement the same
was upon the employer itself and the employees were not expected to
run from pillar to post seeking implementation of benefits which were
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:21.05.2026
14:38:32
W.P.(C) 2946/2026 Page 8 of 17
otherwise payable in law. Therefore, it was observed that the employees
could not be made to suffer on account of lapse or inaction on the part
of the employer itself.
29. In the above noted context, the restriction of arrears to three years
was, therefore, disapproved since the default was on the part of the
employer itself in its failure to extend the benefits which were otherwise
automatically payable.
30. We also note that the aforesaid aspect has been duly noticed by a
Division Bench of this Court in Vidya Bharati School v. Directorate of
8
Education , where the following observations came to be made after
considering Keraleeya Samajam (supra) :-
“ 6 . The limitation of claim to arrears of three years is untenable in
view of the dicta of the Supreme Court in Keraleeya
Samajam v. Pratibha Dattatray Kulkarni (Dead) Lrs, 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 853:
7 . In the present case, the school was to pay monies/salaries in terms
of the salary fixation done by DOE way back on 11.02.2009.. The
school kept pursuing and position and understanding of the law
before the DOE, avoiding the statutorily mandated payment, on the
basis of a purported waiver by the teachers' association. In
compliance with the directions issued on 21.12.2015. in W.P.(C)
11800/2015, the DOE's order directing the school to pay salary and
arrears to the teachers was passed on 10.10.2016.. The school did
not comply with the directions : Now, due to lapse of time, it cannot
take any benefit because of its own recalcitrance to comply with the
Government's directions and statutory obligations. Its non-
compliance over a long period would not create any special equities
in its favour and it does not get absolved of the statutory obligation
th
to pay the salary fixed by the government in terms of the 6 Pay
Commission Recommendation. The so-called collective waiver by
the teachers of their respective statutory dues can hardly be given
cognizance because the nature of employment puts the teachers of a
8
2022 SCC OnLine Del 4968
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:21.05.2026
14:38:32
W.P.(C) 2946/2026 Page 9 of 17
private school on a weaker footing vis-à-vis the school management.
What was the nature of the teacher's association meeting, thereby
rendering the purported resolution untenable. Pay revision in terms
of the Pay Commission Recommendations is a matter of public
policy, with objective of ensuring that with the passage of time the
purchasing power of the government employee is not denuded by
inflation and other related factors. It can hardly be anyone's case
and will be against public policy that the remuneration of teachers
and employees of a school be, for all times, below the standard fixed
by the government. The after-effects of such monetary
relinquishment on the employees, their families and their financial
planning would be dire. Nobody would ordinarily volunteer for such
financial deprivation and yet be expected to discharge their duties
as teachers with the same devotion and dedication as before the pay
revision. The individual remuneration and relinquishment of rights
by each teacher, for all times, is not evidenced. The school's
contentions were rightly rejected in the impugned order. We find no
reason to differ.”
(emphasis supplied)
31. The above aspect also stands followed by another Division
Bench of this Court in D.A.V. College Managing Committee, Through
9
Its General Secretary v. Seema Anil Kapoor and Another .
32. Adverting to the facts of the present case, we find that the claims
raised by the Petitioners essentially pertain to proper implementation of
the benefits flowing from the 6th CPC and the ACP/MACP Scheme. It
was the case of the Petitioners that upon completion of the requisite
period of service, they were entitled to Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/-.
However, despite completing the requisite service period, the
Respondent restricted the Petitioners to Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/-, while
similarly situated employees and even juniors to the Petitioners were
granted Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/-.
9
2023 SCC OnLine Del 2314
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:21.05.2026
14:38:32
W.P.(C) 2946/2026 Page 10 of 17
33. The learned Tribunal accepted this claim and granted relief to the
Petitioners. It is to be noted that the said finding on entitlement is not
challenged before us. Thus, the controversy before us survives only
with respect to the period for which the consequential arrears are liable
to be granted.
34. In our considered view, once the learned Tribunal itself came to
the conclusion that the Petitioners were entitled to higher Grade Pay of
Rs. 5400/-, the principles laid down in Keraleeya Samajam (supra) , as
followed in Vidya Bharati School (supra) and D.A.V. College
Managing Committee (supra) , squarely apply to the facts of the present
case, and therefore, the consequences flowing from determination of
entitlement could not have been artificially truncated by the learned
Tribunal.
35. This becomes all the more significant when one keeps in mind
the nature and effect of pay fixation itself. To our mind, pay revision
and financial upgradations under the ACP/MACP Scheme are intended
to ensure that employees receive the emoluments and retiral benefits
lawfully attached to their service progression and, therefore, correct pay
fixation flows directly from the applicable service rules and pay
structure.
36. Once that be the position, the effect of an incorrect Grade Pay as
well is not confined merely to monthly salary but extends to pension,
retiral dues and all consequential emoluments payable to the employee.
Therefore, once the foundational pay fixation itself is found to be
incorrect, all consequential benefits necessarily require correction.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:21.05.2026
14:38:32
W.P.(C) 2946/2026 Page 11 of 17
37. The sequence of events in the present case also assumes
significance in this regard. It is to be noted that it was only after issuance
of the office order dated 03.05.2016 and the consequential fixation of
pensionary benefits that the Petitioners came to know that despite
similarly situated juniors having been granted Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/,
their own Grade Pay had been calculated to Rs. 4800/-. Thereafter, the
Petitioners submitted representations seeking correction of the said
anomaly and, finding no redressal, were ultimately constrained to
approach the learned Tribunal.
38. Thus, the above clearly indicates that the Petitioners were
compelled to litigate only because the benefits flowing from the 6th
CPC and the ACP/MACP Scheme were not correctly extended to them
by the Respondent itself in the first instance by order dated 03.05.2016.
39. When viewed in that light, the accumulation of arrears was itself
a consequence of the Respondent not correctly implementing the
applicable pay structure at the relevant stage.
40. Therefore, at this stage, the Respondent cannot now be permitted
to take advantage of their own wrong by first continuing an incorrect
pay grade and thereafter seeking to rely upon the passage of time to
curtail the financial consequences flowing from correction of that very
error.
41. Once the entitlement of the Petitioners to the higher Grade Pay
and consequential revision of pensionary benefits stood recognised,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:21.05.2026
14:38:32
W.P.(C) 2946/2026 Page 12 of 17
there remains no justification for us to deny them the full arrears
flowing therefrom.
42. Thus, in light of the legal principles laid down in Keraleeya
Samajam (supra) , as followed in Vidya Bharati School (supra) and
D.A.V. College Managing Committee (supra) , we find that the
Petitioners cannot be made to suffer by denial of the full arrears of pay
and pensionary benefits to which they were otherwise lawfully entitled
for the errors made on the part of the Respondent.
43. As far as applicability of Tarsem Singh (supra) is concerned as
sought by the Respondent, we find that the said decision arose out of a
claim relating to disability pension in which the claim for disability
pension was made after an inordinate delay of about sixteen years after
being invalidated from Army service. It was in that factual backdrop
that the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that although such claims
may constitute a continuing wrong, the consequential arrears could be
restricted to three years prior to institution of proceedings.
44. The present case, in our view, stands on an altogether different
footing. The grievance of the Petitioners pertains to not an isolated
individual claim relating to any personal allowance, but pertains to
proper implementation of the benefits directly flowing from the 6th
CPC and ACP/MACP Scheme. It is this distinction which clearly
separates the present case from the factual situation considered in
Tarsem Singh (supra) .
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:21.05.2026
14:38:32
W.P.(C) 2946/2026 Page 13 of 17
45. The applicability of Tarsem Singh (supra) , particularly to
examine whether the said decision would justify restricting the arrears
payable to an employee to a period of three years, has also been
10
considered by this Court in DDA v. Krishan Kant Sharma , authored
by one of us (C. Hari Shankar, J.), wherein this Court distinguished the
said decision and following observations came to be made:-
15. Nonetheless, to satisfy ourselves, we have perused the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh to examine whether the said
decision would justify restricting the arrears payable to the
respondent for a period of three years.
16. Tarsem Singh was a case which dealt with disability pension. In
that case, the respondent Tarsem Singh was invalidated out of Army
service on 13-11-1983. It was 16 years thereafter, in 1999, that he
sought disability pension. It was in these circumstances that the
Supreme Court observed that the entitlement to disability pension
would be restricted for a period of three years prior to Tarsem Singh
approaching the court.
17. Besides, Tarsem Singh now stands revisited by the Supreme
Court recently in its judgment in Union of India v. Sgt Girish Kumar
2026 SCC OnLine SC 194, rendered on 12-2-2026. We may
reproduce, from the said judgment, paras, 15, 16, 20 and 22 thus:
15. Pension, as authoritatively settled by this Court, is neither a
bounty nor an ex gratia payment dependent upon the grace of the
State. It is a deferred portion of compensation for past service and,
upon fulfilment of the governing conditions, matures into a vested
and enforceable right. Pensionary entitlements, therefore, partake
the character of property, and cannot be withheld, reduced, or
extinguished except by authority of law. This principle applies with
full vigour to disability pension, which is grounded not merely in
length of service, but in the impairment suffered by a member of the
Armed Forces in the course of, or attributable to, the service
rendered to the nation. The disability pension is not a matter of
largesse, but a recognition of sacrifice made in service of the nation.
16. The Union of India, as a model employer, is expected to act
with fairness, consistency and even-handedness in the
administration of benefits conferred upon those who have served the
nation. When a benefit is recognised by a policy and affirmed by
10
2026 SCC OnLine Del 3309
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:21.05.2026
14:38:32
W.P.(C) 2946/2026 Page 14 of 17
judicial pronouncement, its application cannot be selective or
uneven. The judgment rendered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court
in Ram Avtar's case 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1761 (supra) was a
judgment in rem and, therefore, the benefit of same ought to have
been extended by Union of India to the eligible ex-servicemen
instead of requiring them to file original applications before the
Tribunal seeking their entitlement.
*
20. This Court has, in a consistent line of decisions, recognised
that right to receive disability pension is a valuable right and once
found due, the benefit of the same has to be given from the date it
became due. The same cannot be curtailed by restricting the benefit
to a period of three years preceding the filing of the original
application. In the absence of any compelling reason to take a
different view, we find no justification to depart from the view
consistently taken by this Court.
*
22. The reliance placed by the appellant on the decision of a two-
Judge Bench of this Court in Tarsem Singh (supra) is of no
assistance to it, as the legal landscape did not remain static after
decision in Tarsem Singh . Subsequently, a three-Judge Bench of
this Court in Ram Avtar (supra), decided the issue of applicability
of instruction dated 31-1-2001 and the aforesaid decision is in rem.
For, yet another reason, the decision in Tarsem Singh (supra) has
no application to the case in hand as ex-servicemen in the instant
appeals are already in receipt of disability pension and are only
seeking re-computation of the disability pension. The right to
approach the Tribunal accrued to ex-servicemen only on 10-12-
2014 i.e. when the decision in Ram Avtar (supra) was rendered by
this Court. Therefore, the bar contained in Section 22(1)(c) of the
Act has no application to the claims filed by the ex-servicemen
before the Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we
find that the original applications filed by the ex-servicemen do not
suffer from any delay or laches disentitling them from claiming the
relief of arrears of disability pension. Thus, the objections founded
on the delay and limitation are without any merit.”
(Emphasis supplied)
18. In para 15, the Supreme Court has clearly held that pension is
neither a bounty nor an ex gratia payment dependent upon the grace
of the State, and is a deferred portion of compensation for past
service. On fulfilment of the governing conditions, it matures into a
vested and enforceable right. The Supreme Court has further
observed, in clear and unequivocal terms that “pensionary
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:21.05.2026
14:38:32
W.P.(C) 2946/2026 Page 15 of 17
entitlements …. partake the character of property”, and “cannot be
withheld, reduced, or extinguished except by authority of law”.
19. There can, therefore, be no justification for the petitioner
withholding the pensionary benefits of the respondent though he was
compulsorily retired from service in 1991.
(emphasis supplied)
46. The aforesaid observations in Krishan Kant Sharma (supra) , in
our view, further fortify the distinction between stale individual service
claims and claims arising out of proper implementation of pay revision
and consequential pensionary benefits.
47. Even otherwise, on facts as well, we do not find any such
inordinate or unexplained delay on the part of the Petitioners so as to
attract the principles noticed in Tarsem Singh (supra) . In our view, the
Petitioners cannot by any stretch be described as indolent or non-
vigilant litigants so as to warrant curtailment of arrears by applying the
three years restriction laid down in Tarsem Singh (supra) , particularly
when the Petitioners submitted representations immediately after
noticing the anomaly pursuant to the office order dated 03.05.2016 and
thereafter approached the learned Tribunal in the year 2017 itself.
48. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered
opinion that the learned Tribunal erred in relying upon Tarsem Singh
(supra) for restricting the consequential benefits to a period of three
years preceding the filing of the O.A.
49. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the decision of the learned
Tribunal to restrict the arrears available to the Petitioner from three
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:21.05.2026
14:38:32
W.P.(C) 2946/2026 Page 16 of 17
years prior preceding the filing of the O.A. No. 3834/2017 and hold that
the Petitioner would be entitled to arrears from 1.09.2008, on which
date, according to the Petitioners, the juniors were granted Grade Pay
of Rs. 5400/-.
50. Let the arrears computed in the aforesaid terms be disbursed to
the Petitioners within twelve weeks from today.
51. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
MAY 19, 2026 /ss
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:21.05.2026
14:38:32
W.P.(C) 2946/2026 Page 17 of 17