Retired Hindi translator awarded full pay and pension arrears despite 14-year delay, Delhi High Court rules

Ram Autar, an Assistant Director (Official Language) in the Income Tax Department, retired on 31 December 2008.

In 2023, he sought the upgraded pay scales granted under the Department of Expenditure’s Office Memorandum dated 14 July 2003 to specified Central Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS) posts, with notional effect from 1 January 1996 and actual financial benefit from 11 February 2003.

The Department rejected his claim on the ground that the benefit had been granted to other employees pursuant to litigation and could not be extended to him because he had not been a party to those proceedings.

The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed his application, directing that he receive parity with similarly placed employees under an Office Order dated 14/16 August 2023.

The Union of India challenged that order under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether Ram Autar’s claim was barred by limitation, delay or laches, given the time elapsed since his retirement.

2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in granting him pay parity under paragraph 3 of the Office Order dated 14/16 August 2023.

3. Whether arrears were required to be restricted to three years before the institution of the original application.

Under Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, a delayed claim may be rejected for limitation or laches, but a continuing wrong may be considered despite delay, except where third-party rights are affected.

S.K. Mastan Bee v. GM, South Central Rly., (2003) 1 SCC 184, and Maya Banarjee v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1928, were relied on for the principle that, in the circumstances addressed by those decisions, arrears of pension should not be restricted merely because the claimant approached the authorities late.

The Court also relied on the principle of equal treatment of similarly situated employees and on the pay-parity developments arising from Union of India v. Dhananjay Singh, (2014) 13 SCC 588.

Article 14 of the Constitution was invoked in considering whether a retired employee could be denied benefits granted to comparable colleagues.

The Court treated the claim as concerning a continuing wrong affecting pay and pension, with no third-party rights implicated; it therefore held that delay did not bar consideration of the claim.

On entitlement, it found that similarly placed employees had received the upgraded scales and that the Department could not distinguish between employees who had litigated and those who had not. It accordingly upheld the Tribunal’s direction for parity, notwithstanding the earlier Office Memorandum restricting the scales to CSOLS employees.

On arrears, the Court preferred the approach in S.K. Mastan Bee, as applied in Maya Banarjee, and rejected the Union’s proposed three-year limitation, finding that the Department should have extended the parity and corresponding pension benefits to the respondent.

His pension was to be revised accordingly, and all pay and pension arrears were directed to be released within three months of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.

Pending applications were disposed of.