Delay in Service-Related Claims: Continuing Wrong Exception Applies to Pay/Pension Disputes.

The applicants, comprised of retired Inspectors and Superintendents of Central Excise (CBEC), filed Miscellaneous Applications seeking condonation of delay (exceeding 7000 days or 28 years from the initial effective date of pay upgradation) in filing their Original Applications (OAs).

They seek to remove an anomaly in pay scale upgradation, arguing that while their counterparts in CBI/IB received upgraded pay scales effective from January 1, 1996 (the implementation date of the 5th Central Pay Commission), their pay scales were upgraded only from April 21, 2004, by O.M F.No. 06/37/1998-IC dated 21.04.2004.

The applicants contended they were not dormant, having pursued the matter through All-India Service Associations with the Government of India, resulting in proposals from CBEC to the Department of Expenditure in 2006, 2008, 2011, and up to 2017.

They were informed via a letter dated September 11, 2023, that the Department of Expenditure had not agreed to the proposal for upgrading CBEC officers' pay scales, as per a communication dated July 25, 2017.

This information was communicated to nine applicants on various dates in 2023 and 2024, with no reply for the other three.

The applicants argue that a fresh cause of action arose upon receiving these letters, bringing their OAs within the limitation period under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Whether the Miscellaneous Applications for condonation of delay in filing the Original Applications should be allowed, considering the significant delay and the contention of a continuing cause of action?

It referenced *M.R. Gupta v. UOI* (AIR 1996 SC 669) and *Rushibhai Jagdish Chandra Pathak* (2022 SCC online SC 641) for the concept of a 'continuing' cause of action for salary or pension.

The decision in *Purshottam Lal & Ors. v. Union Of India & Anr.* (Writ Petition (Civil) 81 of 1969) was cited for retrospective effect of pay revisions.

The court also relied on *State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha* (2006 (2) SCC 747) for the principle that similarly situated persons should be treated alike.

Crucially, *Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak v. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation* (Supra) and *Union of India and Others v. Tarsem Singh* ([2008] 8 SCC 648) were cited to explain the concept of a "continuing wrong" as one that creates a continuing source of injury, distinguishing it from an isolated wrongful act with continuing effects.

*Tarsem Singh* also clarified that delay might be overlooked for continuing wrongs if they do not unsettling the settled rights of third parties in matters of pay and pension.

*State of U.P. & Ors. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors.* affirmed the principle of non-discrimination for identically situated employees granted relief by a court.

The court granted the condonation of delay by applying the principles of "continuing wrong" and equal treatment for "similarly situated employees."

It noted that the applicants' grievance, concerning the effective date of pay upgradation, potentially affects their pension, which is a continuous cause of action as per *M.R. Gupta* and *Rushibhai Jagdish Chandra Pathak*.

Unlike challenges to policy decisions that are one-time administrative actions, errors in pay fixation or pension computation lead to recurring monthly payments of incorrect amounts, thereby constituting a 'continuing wrong'.

The court recognized that while a significant delay existed, the nature of the claim (pay and pension fixation) typically falls under exceptions where delay can be condoned, as per *Union of India and Others v. Tarsem Singh*, especially since granting relief in such matters usually does not affect the rights of third parties.

The respondents' argument that repeated representations do not revive a stale cause of action (citing *State of Kerala vs Krishnan* and *C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining*) was implicitly overridden by the court's emphasis on the "continuing wrong" doctrine specifically for pay and pension issues.

The court highlighted that multiple other Tribunals and the Supreme Court had already granted similar relief to identically situated employees, making a denial of condonation here amount to discrimination, citing *State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha* and *State of U.P. & Ors. vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors.*

The court considered the applicants' active pursuit of the matter through service associations further supported their claim against being "fence-sitters".

It held that the applicants' claim involved a continuing wrong related to pay and pension, bringing it within the exceptions to the rule of limitation.

Furthermore, it underscored that denying condonation would result in discriminatory treatment compared to similarly situated employees who have already received relief from various courts.

The Registry was directed to number the OAs and list them for admission on February 18, 2026.