Pay Fixation Claim Raised Decades Later After Retirement Barred By Delay & Laches: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed a plea seeking refixation of pay and consequential retiral benefits, holding that a claim raised decades after the alleged cause of action and nearly seven years after retirement is barred by delay and laches.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar noted, "the petitioner has approached this Court after a considerable lapse of time. The alleged wrong fixation occurred in the year 1996; the petitioner retired on 31.05.2017, yet the first representation was made by him only on 26.08.2024 (Annexure P-5), followed by a legal notice dated 29.08.2025 (Annexure P-6). Repeated representations will not keep the issues alive and no plausible explanation has been offered by learned counsel for the petitioner for the delay in filing the present petition. Since the petitioner is no longer in service, the benefit of "continuing wrong" is no longer available to him."
The plea was filed seeking quashing of the order passed in 2025, whereby the respondents rejected the petitioner's claim raised through a legal notice. The petitioner further sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to fix his basic pay at ₹6,200 per month, after granting an annual increment allegedly due on 01.01.1996, along with consequential arrears of pay and retiral benefits.
The petitioner was appointed as a Chowkidar on 01.06.1979 and retired from the post of Mandi Supervisor on 31.05.2017. It was contended that while revising pay under the Revised Pay Rules, 1998, the respondents failed to grant him an increment due on 01.01.1996, resulting in fixation of his basic pay at ₹6,000 instead of ₹6,200.
Reliance was placed on internal departmental communications dated 04.06.2020 and 05.07.2021, which allegedly acknowledged the existence of a pay anomaly. However, counsel for the petitioner conceded that the cause of action arose in 1996, and that the petitioner submitted his first formal representation only on 26.08.2024, followed by a legal notice dated 29.08.2025.
The respondents- Punjab Mandi Board represented by Advocate Abhilaksh Gaind opposed the petition on the ground of gross delay and laches, submitting that the petitioner failed to exercise the requisite option under the Revised Pay Rules, 1998 at the relevant time, unlike other similarly placed employees. It was argued that the petitioner remained silent throughout his service tenure and for nearly seven years after retirement, rendering the claim stale and legally untenable.
After hearing the submissions, the High Court reiterated that while limitation does not strictly apply to writ proceedings, unexplained and inordinate delay is a decisive factor in exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226.
Relying on Supreme Court decisions including Chairman, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Ram Gopal (2021), Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley (2024), State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari (2013) and Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar (2010), the Court held that repeated representations do not revive stale or dead claims, nor do they give rise to a fresh cause of action.
The Court further examined the law relating to pay fixation and continuing wrongs, referring to M.R. Gupta v. Union of India (1995) and the Full Bench judgment in Saroj Kumari v. State of Punjab (1998). It was held that while incorrect pay fixation may constitute a continuing wrong during service, once an employee retires, the doctrine ceases to apply, and delayed claims raised post-superannuation are liable to be dismissed.
Justice Brar explained, "so long as an employee is in service, a petition claiming refixation of pay is not barred by limitation or the doctrine of laches, as the denial of benefit occurs every month when the salary is paid, thereby giving rise to a fresh cause of action, based on continuing wrong. Such a case is not a case of one time action like the case of termination or dismissal from service."
However, payment of arrears can be restricted to a reasonable period. Three years and two months has been considered to be a reasonable period as that is the period for which a person can ask for the payment of arrears before a Civil Court. However, once an employee ceases to be in service, the wrong fixation of pay can no longer be treated as a continuing wrong, it added.
Consequently, a petition seeking such fixation, if instituted after cessation of service and with substantial delay, is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, the Court said.
Finding no plausible explanation for the prolonged delay and noting that the petitioner had approached the Court long after retirement, the plea was dismissed.
Title: Ajit Singh v. Punjab Mandi Board and others
Mr. Nirmal Singh Kandhola, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Abhilaksh Gaind, Standing Counsel with Ms. Priya Jarial, Advocate
for the respondents.