Retired employees claiming delayed pay-scale parity are limited to notional fixation for pensionary benefits.

The petitioners, retired employees, filed a petition under Article 226 seeking arrears, consequential benefits, and directions to the respondents to decide their representations for parity with similarly situated employees who had received revised pay-scale benefits pursuant to A.L. Thakur v. State of M.P., W.P. No. 16054 of 2003, decided on 27 June 2012.

During hearing, the petitioners restricted their claim to consideration of their representations and grant of the same relief as extended in A.L. Thakur.

The Court noted that, in Ashok Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, W.P. No. 14178 of 2019 and connected matters, it had held that retired employees could receive only notional pay fixation for pensionary purposes, while claims for past arrears were barred by delay and limitation.

On that basis, the present petition was considered for limited relief.

Whether the retired petitioners could claim arrears and other monetary benefits arising from alleged parity in pay scales with similarly situated employees under the judgment in A.L. Thakur, despite the delay in asserting the claim?

Whether the petitioners were entitled at least to consideration of their claim and notional pay fixation for revision of pensionary benefits?

The Court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and applied the principles of delay, laches, and limitation.

It relied on State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436, for the rule that a recurring cause of action does not justify stale claims for past monetary benefits and that fence-sitters cannot claim parity after prolonged delay.

Under Article 7 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, claims for wages are ordinarily subject to a three-year period from the date the amount becomes due.

M.R. Gupta v. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 628, recognizes continuing or recurring causes of action for correct pay fixation but restricts recovery of time-barred arrears.

The Court further relied on Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan, (2006) 4 SCC 322, Shiv Dass v. Union of India, (2007) 9 SCC 274, U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh, (2006) 11 SCC 464, and NDMC v. Pan Singh, (2007) 9 SCC 278, for the proposition that unexplained delay and laches may disentitle a claimant from discretionary writ relief.

However, notional pay fixation may still be granted for revision of pensionary benefits where the claim is otherwise legally justified.

The petitioners were retired employees seeking retrospective monetary benefits based on parity with employees covered by A.L. Thakur.

Since the claim concerned arrears allegedly accruing during their service and was pursued after substantial delay, the Court applied the rule that a recurring pay dispute may support correction of pay fixation prospectively or notionally, but does not revive a stale claim for arrears.

The reasoning in Ashok Kumar Saxena was treated as directly applicable: retired employees could not obtain past arrears, but could receive notional fixation for pensionary purposes.

Accordingly, the Court limited the respondents’ obligation to considering the petitioners’ cases for notional fixation and pension revision, rather than directing payment of arrears.

The respondents were directed to consider the petitioners’ cases only for notional pay fixation for the purpose of revising pensionary benefits, in accordance with the principles laid down in Ashok Kumar Saxena.

The claim for arrears and other past monetary benefits was not granted.

The petition was accordingly disposed of.