The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a retired employee cannot claim monetary arrears beyond the preceding three years, and in the case of a retired employee, the doctrine of recurring cause of action cannot be invoked to claim past salary benefits indefinitely. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 309]

The bench of Justice Deepak Khot observed that such an employee would be at best entitled to notional pay fixation for the purposes of recalculating pensionary benefits.

"From a bare reading of the provision of law, it is clear that an employee is entitled to seek monetary benefits only for the preceding three years and not beyond that. The analogy of a recurring cause of action will come into play only when the petitioner is to be benefited by the grant of such monetary benefits in present and future. Since the petitioner has already retired, he is not entitled to arrears on the basis of the pay scale that has accrued to him on the basis of identical matters. At the most, the petitioner can be granted the benefit of notional fixation for the purpose of pensionary benefits".

The petitioner was appointed as Timekeeper in the Work-Charged and Contingency Paid Establishment under the Water Resources Department and rendered service of 40 years before retiring on August 31, 2013.

During his service, he was granted the applicable pay scales. Subsequently, the High Court in AL Thakur v State of Madhya Pradesh [Writ Petition No.16054/2003] had directed the State to extend the higher revised pay scales to similarly situated employees. The respondents implemented that judgment in respect of several eligible employees.

Claiming parity with those employees, the petitioner sought the same benefit. However, his claim was rejected by the authorities.

The petitioner then approached the High Court by order of March 6, 2017, directing the respondents to examine his claim and grant benefit if his case was fully covered by AL Thakur.

When no decision was taken despite the Court's order, the petitioner initiated contempt proceedings. The contempt petition was eventually disposed of after the State informed the Court that the earlier order was complied with.

Since his grievance remained unresolved, the petitioner again approached the High Court through a writ petition pursuant to which the respondents were directed to pass a reasoned order. Thereafter, by order of March 19, 2019, the respondents once again rejected his claim for parity with similarly situated employees. Challenging this order, the petitioner contended that it was arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the Court's order in AL Thakur.

The counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner had filed the petition seeking monetary benefits in 2019 after five years of retirement on August 31, 2013.

Referring to the case of State of Orissa v Mamata Mohanty [2011 (3) SCC 436], the court noted that people cannot seek advantage after sitting on the fence while the matter is being pursued before the courts, and after receiving a favourable order, approach the court seeking similar benefits.

The bench also relied on Article 7 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, which prescribed that the period of limitation for recovery of money or salary is three years from the date when it became due. However, the court also noted that no period of limitation is provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Thus, the bench directed, "Therefore, the petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 19.03.2019 (Annexure-P/5) is hereby quashed. Insofar as the arrears of the monetary benefits of the pay scale, which could have been granted or were denied during the petitioner's service prior to his retirement, are concerned, the petitioner shall be entitled only to notional fixation for the purpose of pension".

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Saxena v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-14178-2019

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 309

For Petitioner: Advocate Rahul Patel

For State: Advocate Shraddha Tiwari

Click here to read/download the Order