Entitlement to pay scale arrears is restricted to three years prior to the date of filing.

The appellant was appointed as a teacher in 1995 in a government-aided institution.

He alleged denial of revised pay scales under the 5th and 6th Pay Commissions and initially filed W.P. No. 7575/2006.

Following a representation rejection, he filed WPS No. 4284/2016.

During pendency, he was terminated on 10.02.2018 on grounds of being over-aged and a non-domicile at the time of appointment.

The Writ Court, by order dated 28.07.2025, restricted arrears of the difference in pay scale to three years prior to the filing of the 2016 petition (i.e., from 24.08.2013) until his termination.

The appellant filed this writ appeal seeking arrears calculated from three years prior to his *first* petition in 2006.

Whether the appellant is entitled to arrears of pay scale revision effective from three years prior to the first writ petition (2006) rather than the second writ petition (2016).

Whether the termination of the appellant was legal given the allegations of being over-aged and lacking domicile status at the time of initial appointment.

The Court primarily applied the principle of limitation and laches in matters of service benefits as articulated in *Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak v. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation* (2022) 18 SCC 144, which established that while a claim for pay revision may be a continuing cause of action, the recovery of arrears must be restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of filing the writ petition.

It further considered the doctrine of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" under Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India, noting its limited applicability where initial appointments are found to be ineligible or not in accordance with Steiner rules.

The Court reasoned that the appellant's appointment was void *ab initio* because he surpassed the age limit by 1 year, 1 month, and 10 days at the time of recruitment and did not qualify for domicile-based age relaxation.

Consequently, the Court found that the appellant could not claim parity with legally appointed employees.

Regarding the arrears, the Court applied the ratio from *Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak*, asserting that only the date of the specific writ petition providing the relief is relevant for calculating the three-year limitation for arrears.

Since the 2016 petition was the one under adjudication for the specific relief of revised pay, the Single Judge correctly restricted the monetary benefit to the three-year period preceding 24.08.2016.

The Court rejected the argument that the cause of action should relate back to the 2006 petition, as the subsequent termination and fresh rounds of litigation created a distinct procedural timeline.

The Court held that the appellant's termination was justified due to ineligibility at the time of appointment and that he was only entitled to the difference in pay scale for the three years prior to the filing of WPS No. 4284/2016 (i.e., from 24.08.2013) until his removal on 10.02.2018 with 7% interest.

No further relief regarding notional fixation from 2003 was granted.