Pay fixation claims constitute a continuing wrong, warranting condonation of delay and parity with similarly situated employees.

The five Applicants, employed as Junior Radiographers with the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), approached the Tribunal seeking to quash an impugned order dated 25.09.2020 which denied them a specific pay scale

They sought a direction for the grant of PB-1 Rs. 5200-20200 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 2400 (pre-revised Rs. 4000-6000) effective from their respective due dates as per the Pay Commission’s report, along with arrears

The Applicants filed a miscellaneous application for condonation of delay, asserting they were similarly situated to the petitioner in Nikhil Shrivastava v. Union of India (OA No. 3109/2022), decided on 12.12.2025

The Respondents opposed the plea, citing a delay of over one year and arguing that the matter was governed by autonomous organizational regulations and was currently sub judice before the Delhi High Court in a related Writ Petition

1. Whether the delay in filing the Original Application should be condoned based on the principle of continuing wrong in pay fixation and parity with similarly situated employees

2. Whether the Applicants are entitled to the upgraded pay scale and Grade Pay of Rs. 2400 in accordance with the prior decision in Nikhil Shrivastava

The Tribunal relied on the principle that pay fixation constitutes a "continuing wrong," as established by the Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. (1995) and State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Yogendra Shrivastava (2010)

It further applied the doctrine of parity for similarly situated employees and the limitation principles regarding arrears as discussed in Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak v. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation (2022)

The matter was primarily governed by the precedent set by the Coordinate Bench in Nikhil Shrivastava v. Union of India (OA No. 3109/2022)

The Tribunal observed that the core legal issue regarding pay scales for Junior Radiographers had already been adjudicated in Nikhil Shrivastava

Despite the Respondents' contention regarding delay and the autonomy of ESIC regulations, the Tribunal found that the cause of action remained alive because the related judgment (OA No. 291/00091/2014) was still being contested by the Respondents in the Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) No. 6414/2015)

By applying the logic from Nikhil Shrivastava, the Tribunal determined that the Applicants deserved similar treatment to maintain judicial consistency. The Tribunal addressed the limitation issue by categorizing pay fixation as a continuous grievance, thereby justifying the condonation of delay

The Respondents were directed to grant the requested pay scale and benefits mutatis mutandis, subject to the final outcome of the pending Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court

It was clarified that the order is without prejudice to the contentions of either party currently before the High Court