Denial of salary, allowance or any other recurring benefit is a continuing wrong and thus not barred by limitation: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Harshit Sharma | Amity Law School, Madhya Pradesh | 14th January 2020 

Jagdish Chand V/s. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. CWP No. 2411/2019

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The Upasaks were granted the benefit of Joga Singh’s Judgment by the High Court in the year of 2015 while directing the State to count the services rendered by them for the purpose of pension under CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972, annual increments, seniority, promotion and other consequential benefits. Subsequently, the SLP and the review petition led against the said order came to be dismissed, thus granting finality to the High Court’s order. Claiming to be situated in a similar position as the Upasaks, the present petitioner Junior Basic Teachers had approached the High Court for extension of the benefit granted in Joga Singh’s judgment to them, by presentation of present petition.  
2. The Petitioners had in fact argued that their services were regularized in 2006, prior to regularization of Upasaks, and thus non-extension of Joga Singh’s judgment to them had virtually made them juniors to their actual juniors/Upasaks.
3. The State opposed the petition stating that it was barred by limitation under Section 21 of Administrative Tribunal Act. Reliance was placed on Union of India v. C. Girija & Ors., (2019) 3 SCALE 527, to state that the petitioners were fence sitters and therefore, they should not be allowed to reap the benefit of judgment in Joga Singh’s case which was also considered to be bad in law.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the issues pertaining to the payment of salary, allowance, etc. are not barred by limitation due to their recurring nature?

RULING OF THE COURT/ THE COURT HELD THAT

Observing that the issues pertaining to payment of salary, allowance, etc. are not barred by limitation due to their recurring nature, the Himachal Pradesh High Court vide this judgment directed the State to count the services rendered by Junior Basic Teachers on contract basis w.e.f. 7.8.1997, for the purposes of pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, annual increments, seniority, promotion and other consequential benefits. The following was verbatim is reproduced that of the judgment:

1. Relying upon the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Yogendra Srivastava held, “Where the issue relates to payment or fixation of salary or any allowance, the challenge 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”.
2. Further it was held that, the Petitioner JBTs at par with the Vidya Upasaks, whose services though regularized in 2007, were counted from their initial dates of appointment for the purposes of pension under CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, annual increments, seniority, promotions, etc., as per the law laid down in Joga Singh & Ors. v. State of H.P. & Ors., CWP No.8953/2013.
3. “Judgment in Joga Singh’s case is virtually a judgment in rem in so far as JBT cadre is concerned. Contractually appointed JBTs (petitioners) and Vidya Upasaks (Joga Singh & others) eventually were regularized as JBTs & merged into one cadre of JBT. Petitioners were appointed as JBTs on contract basis prior in time to Joga Singh & others’ appointment as Vidya Upasaks. Appointment of both the categories was against sanctioned and regular posts. Petitioners were regularized as JBTs prior in time to regularization of Vidya Upasaks. Benets of counting past service granted to all Vidya Upasaks as a category in whole treating it as qualifying service towards grant of pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and annual increments cannot be denied to the petitioners, who were seniors to VU.”