2006 (1) TMI 672 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Pay protection and refixation of basic pay.
2. Allied pensionary benefits.
3. Limitation period for filing the Original Application.
4. Applicability of Office Memorandum dated 17.6.1965.
5. Continuing cause of action for pay fixation.
6. Entitlement to arrears of salary.
7. Entitlement to revised pensionary benefits.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Pay Protection and Refixation of Basic Pay:
The employee, previously a Lower Division Clerk in the Ministry of Health, was appointed as a clerk in Grade-II in Integral Coach Factory in December 1964, with a pay scale of Rs. 110-180. At the time of this transition, the employee was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 128/-. The employee sought pay protection, requesting that his pay be fixed at Rs. 128/- in the new position.

2. Allied Pensionary Benefits:
The employee also sought allied pensionary benefits based on the protected pay scale. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the employee, granting pay protection and directing the refixation of pay at Rs. 128/-.

3. Limitation Period for Filing the Original Application:
The employer argued that the Original Application was barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, as the employee's claim had been rejected in December 1968. The Tribunal, however, held that pay fixation is a continuing cause of action and thus not barred by delay, noting that the employee had been agitating the matter since 1968.

4. Applicability of Office Memorandum dated 17.6.1965:
The employer contended that the Office Memorandum dated 17.6.1965, which allowed pay protection, was only applicable prospectively and should not reopen past cases. The Tribunal found that the employee met all conditions under the Memorandum, as he had applied through the proper channel and resigned for administrative reasons. The Tribunal interpreted the phrase "Outstanding cases may, however, be dealt with in accordance with these orders" to mean that the Memorandum applied to employees still in service when it was issued.

5. Continuing Cause of Action for Pay Fixation:
The Tribunal ruled that pay fixation is a continuing cause of action, meaning the employee's claim could not be dismissed on grounds of delay. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the right to claim differential pay became time-barred under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.

6. Entitlement to Arrears of Salary:
The High Court found that the employee's claim for arrears of salary was barred by limitation. The employee's right to claim additional salary on the basis of pay protection was waived by his inaction for about 30 years and the rejection of his application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in 1977.

7. Entitlement to Revised Pensionary Benefits:
The High Court held that the right to receive pension is a continuing right. Although the employee's claim for arrears of salary was barred, his right to revised pension based on the protected pay scale was not extinguished. The High Court ruled that the employee was entitled to revised pensionary benefits from 19.10.2001, the date he approached the Pension Adalath.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the writ petition in part, denying the employee arrears of salary but granting revised pensionary benefits from 19.10.2001. The arrears of pension were to be calculated and paid within three months, with revised pension payments to commence from April 2006. There was no order as to costs.