Service Matter: Pay Scale – Recovery of arrears – In terms of the scheme, the appellant-‘Data Entry Operator’ granted higher pay-scale of the next promotional post of Rs.5,000-8,000/- from different dates – Pursuant to the order dated 28th October 2010, the benefit provided under the Scheme revised by the respondentCorporation observing that the appellants and others employees were erroneously granted benefit of the higher grade pay-scale of the next promotional post instead of the next stage in the hierarchy of pay scales – Higher pay scale of the promotional posts granted to the appellants withdrawn and the excess payments made were recovered from the appellants – After a gap of seven years, the appellants filed writ petitions challenging the order dated 28th October, 2010 and direction was sought against the respondentCorporation to avail the pay-scale of the next higher promotional post and to pay the arrears – Writ Petition allowed – Division Bench partially allowed the appeal by the Corporation, in view of delay and laches on the part of the appellants in approaching the court, by restricting the grant of higher pay-scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/- with consequential benefits from the date of the judgment of the Single Judge; that the prayer of the appellants for recovery of arrears from 2010 was declined, and that the respondent-Corporation, would not be required to refund any amount that they have recovered from the appellants pursuant to the order dated 28th October 2010 – On appeal, held: Rules of limitation and delay and laches are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties but serve a larger public interest and are founded on public policy – If the employee’s claim is found to be correct on merits, they would be entitled to be paid according to the properly fixed pay-scale in future and the question of limitation would arise for recovery of the arrears for the past period – Appellants entitled to arrears in the pre-revised pay-scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/- for three years prior to the date of filing of the Writ Petitions along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum with effect from 1st September 2017 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Delay and Laches.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The doctrine of delay and laches, or for that matter statutes of limitation, are considered to be statutes of repose and statutes of peace, though some contrary opinions have been expressed. The courts have expressed the view that the law of limitation rests on the foundations of greater public interest for three reasons, namely, (a) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them; (b) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to disapprove a stale claim; and (iii) that persons with good causes of action (who are able to enforce them) should pursue them with reasonable diligence. Equally, change in de facto position or character, creation of third party rights over a period of time, waiver, acquiesce, and need to ensure certitude in dealings, are equitable public policy considerations why period of limitation is prescribed by law. Law of limitation does not apply to writ petitions, albeit the discretion vested with a constitutional court is exercised with caution as delay and laches principle is applied with the aim to secure the quiet of the community, suppress fraud and perjury, quicken diligence, and prevent oppression. [Para 9][1021-A-D]
1.2 The law recognises a ‘continuing’ cause of action which may give rise to a ‘recurring’ cause of action as in the case of salary or pension. So long as the employee is in service, a fresh cause of action would arise every month when they are paid their salary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to the rules. If the employee’s claim is found to be correct on merits, they would be entitled to be paid according to the properly fixed pay-scale in future and the question of limitation would arise for recovery of the arrears for the past period. [Para 10][1022-E-G]
1.3 The respondent-Corporation had accepted the interpretation rendered by the High Court to the Scheme whereby the appellants, on financial upgradation, would be entitled to the higher grade pay-scale of the next promotional post, which is Rs.5,000-8,000/- in the instant case. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench accepts the said position and grants the appellants the said pay-scale but restricts the benefit from the date of the judgment of the Single Judge in the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants, that is, with effect from 31.07.2018. The Division Bench should not have taken the date of the decision/judgment of the Single Judge for grant of the said benefit in view of the decision and ratio in Tarsem Singh’s case. Only date of filing of the writ petition is relevant while examining the question of delay and laches or limitation. The appellants would be entitled to the arrears for three years before the date of filing of the Writ Petitions. [Para 14][1025-E-G; 1026-A]
1.4 There is an inclination to grant interest to the appellants on the arrears at the rate of 7% per annum, which would be payable with effect from 1.09.2017. The said date is fixed for grant of interest as the respondent-Corporation has accepted the interpretation of the Scheme rendered on 16.08.2016 in the Writ Petition preferred by MJ. Normally, and as a model employer, on accepting the said decision, the respondent should have uniformly applied and granted the benefit to all its similarly situated employees affected by the order dated 28th October 2010. This would have avoided unnecessary litigation before the courts. [Para 15][1026-B-C]
1.5 The prayer of the appellants that they should be given arrears right from 2010 has to be rejected. The prayer of the appellants that they should be refunded the entire amount which had been collected by the respondent-Corporation in terms of the order dated 28 th October 2010 is rejected. The appellants would be entitled to arrears in the pre-revised pay-scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/- for three years prior to the date of filing of the Writ Petitions along with interest at the rate of 7% pa with effect from 1st September 2017. The arrears, with interest, would be paid within the stipulated period. [Para 16, 17][1027-F-H] Union of India (UOI) and Ors. v. Tarsem Singh (2008)
8 SCC 648:[2008] 12 SCR 104; M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 628:[1995] 2 Suppl. SCR 852 – relied on.
The Moon Mills, Ltd. v. M.R. Meher AIR 1967 SC 1450; Shiv Dass v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 274:[2007] 1 SCR 1127; Balkrishna Savalram Pujari and Ors. v. Shree Dnyaneshwar Maharaj
Sansthan and Ors. AIR 1959 SC 798:[1959] Suppl. SCR 476; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347:[2014] 12 SCR 193; State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Yogendra Shrivastava (2010) 12 SCC 538:[2009] 14 SCR 1137; Asger
Ibrahim Amin v. Life Insurance Corporation of India (2016) 13 SCC 797:[2015] SCR 865; Nav Rattanmal and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan AIR 1961 SC 1704:[1962] SCR 324; State of Kerala and Ors. v. V.R. Kalliyanikutty and Ors. (1999) 3 SCC 657:[1999] 2 SCR 372; Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association (2005) 7 SCC 510:[2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 1030; N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123:[1998] 1 Suppl. SCR 403; M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and Ors. (1995) 5 SCC
628:[1995] 2 Suppl. SCR 852 – referred to.
Sir Barnes Peacock in The Lindsay Petroleum Company v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd, Abram Farewell, and John Kemp (1874) LR 5 PC 221 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.