Accrued time-bound promotions and pensionary benefits constitute recurring causes of action, overriding technical pleas of delay.

The applicant is the widow of Late Shri Som Dutt, who served as a Daily Wager in the Accounts and Treasuries Department from September 5, 1983, until his regularization on January 31, 1989

The applicant alleged that the department failed to grant her husband three Time Bound Promotions (TBP) from their correct due dates.

Specifically, the 1st TBP was granted on February 1, 1998, instead of June 1, 1995 (which required counting 50% of daily wage service under SRO-311)

The 2nd TBP, due on June 1, 2004, was granted only notionally from 2007 and monetarily from 2011

The 3rd TBP became due on June 1, 2013, but was never granted prior to Som Dutt's death in service on October 30, 2014

The respondents rejected the applicant's 2016 representation for arrears and pension revision on November 29, 2016, citing gross delay and laches

The matter was subsequently transferred from the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir to the Central Administrative Tribunal

1. Whether the claim for arrears and re-fixation of time-bound promotions is barred by the doctrine of delay and laches

2. Whether the deceased employee was entitled to the counting of 50% of his daily wage service for the purpose of determining the eligibility dates for time-bound promotions under SRO-311

3. Whether the 3rd TBP, which fell due during the lifetime of the employee but was not formally ordered before his death, can be granted post-humously to calculate family pension

The court primarily applied the principle that pension and retiral benefits constitute "property" under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and cannot be withheld without lawful justification

It relied on Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar (1971), which established that pension is a valuable right earned by service, not a bounty

State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) regarding the seriousness of delaying retiral settlements

the court applied the doctrine from Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2008), which clarifies that grievances related to pay fixation and pension constitute a "recurring cause of action," allowing courts to entertain such claims despite delays, provided arrears are reasonably restricted

Eligibility for TBP was governed by SRO-311, which allows counting 50% of daily wage service for promotion benefits

The Tribunal noted that the material facts regarding the deceased’s service history and the applicability of SRO-311 were largely undisputed

It rejected the respondents' plea of delay, reasoning that since the claim directly impacts the calculation of pension and family pension—a recurring cause of action—technical grounds of limitation cannot be used to deny substantive service rights

The Tribunal observed that the deceased had already raised these grievances during his lifetime, putting the department on notice

Regarding the 3rd TBP, the Tribunal held that since the employee’s eligibility had matured on June 1, 2013, prior to his death in 2014, the benefit could not be denied merely because the administration failed to issue a formal order during his lifetime

The court concluded that the widow was entitled to the financial benefits that had legally accrued to her husband to ensures her family pension was correctly fixed

It held that the deceased was entitled to the 1st TBP effective June 1, 1995 (counting 50% daily wage service under SRO-311), the 2nd TBP effective June 1, 2004, and the 3rd TBP effective June 1, 2013

The respondents were directed to: (i) notionally re-fix the deceased employee's pay from the respective due dates; (ii) calculate and release all consequential arrears of salary accrued during his service; and (iii) revise the applicant's pensionary benefits and family pension based on the corrected pay fixation

The entire exercise must be completed within three months of receiving the order