Belated retired employees may receive notional pay fixation for pension, but not monetary arrears.

The petitioner, a retired employee, sought quashing of the orders dated 29 May 2018 and 31 May 2018 denying him revised pay-scale benefits.

He claimed that the post of Time Keeper had been redesignated as Field Assistant and that the pay scale of Time Keeper was equivalent to that of Amin.

Relying on the decisions in A.L. Thakur v. State of M.P., W.P. No. 16054/2003, and other similar cases, he claimed revised pay scales, arrears, interest, and consequential pensionary benefits under the principle of equal pay for equal work.

The State opposed the petition on the ground of delay and laches, contending that the petitioner had retired on 31 December 2012 but filed the writ petition only in 2018, approximately four years after retirement, seeking monetary benefits arising from earlier pay-scale claims.

Whether the petitioner, despite approaching the High Court after substantial delay and after retirement, was entitled to revised pay-scale benefits and arrears on the basis of parity with similarly situated employees.

Whether the petitioner’s claim constituted a recurring or continuing cause of action so as to avoid the bar of delay and limitation in respect of arrears.

Whether, even if arrears were denied, the petitioner could be granted notional pay fixation for revision of pensionary benefits.

The Court applied the doctrine of delay and laches governing discretionary relief under Article 226, relying on State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436, which holds that a litigant cannot remain inactive and later claim parity merely because another diligent litigant obtained relief.

Article 7 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, prescribing three years for recovery of wages from the date they become due, was treated as indicative of the limitation applicable to monetary claims, although the Limitation Act does not directly govern writ petitions.

Under M.R. Gupta v. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 628, incorrect pay fixation may constitute a recurring cause of action for future or continuing salary payments, but arrears remain subject to limitation and laches.

The Court also relied on Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Thangappan, (2006) 4 SCC 322; M.P. Ram Mohan Raja v. State of T.N., (2007) 9 SCC 78; Shiv Dass v. Union of India, (2007) 9 SCC 274; Nadia Distt. Primary School Council v. Sristidhar Biswar, (2007) 12 SCC 779; U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh, (2006) 11 SCC 464; Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538; and NDMC v. Pan Singh, (2007) 9 SCC 278, for the propositions that unexplained and inordinate delay may disentitle a claimant to relief, that repeated representations do not ordinarily explain delay, and that pensionary claims may be continuing but are ordinarily restricted to a reasonable period.

The Court accepted that the petitioner’s pay-scale grievance could involve a recurring wrong while he remained in service, but distinguished between prospective or notional pay fixation and recovery of long-delayed arrears.

Since the petitioner retired on 31 December 2012 and instituted the writ petition in 2018, his claim for monetary benefits accrued during service was substantially delayed and was subject to the three-year limitation principle and the equitable doctrine of laches.

The Court held that the principle of recurring cause of action could not revive or overcome the petitioner’s stale claim for arrears after retirement.

Nevertheless, because the claim concerned alleged incorrect pay fixation and could affect pension, the Court considered it appropriate to grant notional fixation for pensionary purposes without awarding arrears of salary or other monetary benefits for the period preceding retirement.

The impugned orders dated 29 May 2018 and 31 May 2018 were quashed.

The petitioner was denied arrears and other monetary benefits relating to the period of service prior to retirement, but was held entitled to notional fixation of pay for the purpose of revising his pensionary benefits.

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