Belated pay-parity claims by retired employees warrant only notional fixation for pensionary benefits, not arrears.

The petitioner was appointed as a Time Keeper in the Work-Charged and Contingency Paid Establishment of the Water Resources Department and retired on 31 August 2013 after approximately forty years of service.

He was granted pay scales of Rs. 445–635 from 1 April 1982, Rs. 825–1220 from 1 January 1986, and Rs. 2750–4400 from 1 January 1996.

Relying on A.L. Thakur v. State of Madhya Pradesh, under which higher pay scales were granted to similarly situated employees, he sought parity with employees holding the post of Amin.

Pursuant to earlier directions of the High Court, the respondents considered his claim but rejected it by order dated 19 March 2019.

The petitioner challenged that rejection under Article 226, alleging discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The State opposed the petition principally on the ground of delay and laches, noting that the petitioner had approached the Court approximately five years after retirement.

Whether the petitioner, being similarly situated to employees who obtained higher pay scales pursuant to A.L. Thakur, was entitled to parity in pay fixation and consequential pensionary benefits.

Whether the petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, particularly where the petitioner sought monetary benefits arising from pay-scale revisions extending back to 1982, 1986 and 1996.

Whether, notwithstanding the delay and the petitioner’s retirement, the Court could grant notional pay fixation for revision of pensionary benefits while denying arrears of salary.

The Court applied the doctrine of delay and laches governing discretionary relief under Article 226, relying on State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan, M.P. Ram Mohan Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu, Shiv Dass v. Union of India, Nadia District Primary School Council v. Sristidhar Biswas, U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh, Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana and NDMC v. Pan Singh.

The Court held that a recurring cause of action arising from incorrect pay fixation may justify correction of future or continuing pay entitlement, but does not automatically revive stale claims for past arrears; claims for wages are ordinarily subject to the three-year period reflected in Article 7 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.

Under M.R. Gupta v. Union of India, incorrect pay fixation constitutes a continuing wrong for purposes of proper fixation, but arrears and consequential relief remain subject to limitation and laches.

The Court also applied the principle that fence-sitters cannot claim the benefit of judgments obtained by diligent litigants after an inordinate and unexplained delay.

The Court accepted that the petitioner’s claim was connected with the same pay-scale issue decided in favour of similarly situated employees in A.L. Thakur, and therefore found the rejection order unsustainable to that extent.

However, the petitioner had retired in 2013 and sought monetary benefits based on pay revisions arising decades earlier.

Applying the principles of recurring cause of action, limitation and laches, the Court held that his delayed approach could not entitle him to arrears for the period of service preceding retirement.

At the same time, because proper pay fixation could affect the computation of pension, the Court distinguished between retrospective monetary arrears and notional fixation.

It concluded that notional revision of pay was permissible for determining pensionary benefits, even though actual arrears of salary were barred by delay and laches.

The order dated 19 March 2019 rejecting the petitioner’s claim was quashed.

The petitioner was denied arrears of monetary benefits relating to the revised pay scales during his service, but was held entitled to notional pay fixation for the purpose of pension.

The respondents were directed to re-fix his pay notionally and revise his pensionary benefits in accordance with law.