Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member (Ad.)

1. In the instant case, the applicant has prayed for a direction to the respondents to provide benefit of pay scale of Rs. 260-400 with effect from 19.03.1988 and also fix the pay, pension and release the arrears of pay, pension and other consequential benefits within specified period.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the both the parties on the issue of limitation.

3. The ground of the applicant for condoning the delay is that his case is similar to the case of Bhagwan Swaroop and others Vs. Union of India and others, which was decided on 01.08.2018 in OA No. 1876/2010. The applicant retired from the office of the respondents but they have not allowed the pay scale of Tailor i.e. Rs. 260-400 and illegally allowed the pay scale of Rs. 210-290. The applicant retired during the pendency of OA filed by Shri Bhagwan Swaroop & ors, who were similarly situated persons. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the matter of pay fixation was adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India and others - 1995 SCC (L&S) 1273, wherein it was held that the pay fixation was not in accordance with rules and as a matter of continuing wrong against the applicants, which gave rise to a recurring cause of action every time he was paid salary, which was not computed in accordance with the rules. So long as the appellant is in service, a fresh cause of action arises every month when he is paid his monthly salary on the basis of wrong computation made contrary to rules and the court observed that to this limited extent, the proper pay fixation, the application cannot be treated as time barred since it is based on a recurring cause of action.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Taresm Singh (Annexure-2), where delay of 16 years was condoned and early payments were directed. Learned counsel for the applicant further states that the respondents allowed the similar benefit to similarly situated employees as such the applicant is also entitled to avail the aforesaid benefit. It is further contended that the pay fixation is done by the authorities and for the mistake committed by them, the applicant should not be allowed to suffer wrongful. It is further stated that by the Full Bench of C.A.T. Bangalore Bench in OA No. 451 and 541 of 1991 - C.S. Elias Ahmed and others Vs. U.O.I & others, it has been held that the entire class of employees, who are similarly situated, are required to be given the benefit of the decision whether or not they were parties to the original writ. Incidentally, this principle has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case as well as in numerous other judgment like G.C. Ghosh Vs. Union of India (1992) 19 ATC 94 (SC) dated 20.07.1988, K.I. Stepherd Vs. Union of India (JT 1987 (3) 600), Abid Hussain Vs. Union of India JT 1987 (1) SC 147) etc, accordingly were recommended that decisions taken in one specific case either by the judiciary or the government should be applied to all other identical cases without forcing the other employees to approach the court of law for an identical remedy or relief. It was clearly held that decision will apply only in cases where a principle or common issue of general nature applicable to group or category of government employees is concerned and not in matters relating to a specific grievance or anomaly of an individual employee.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further averred that the applicant being a retired/lower level functionary neither is well informed nor well endowed with resources. Somehow he made arrangement of expenses and came to this Tribunal and as he has a case based on recurring cause of action, there is no real point of limitation so far as re-fixation of salary and getting correct wages prospectively is concerned.

6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no deliberate delay in filing the OA, hence the delay may be condoned and the case may be admitted.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed objection to the delay condonation application and only argued the case.

8. We have gone through the objection filed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Although the respondents denied everything in the delay condonation application and emphasized that the application is inordinately delayed and that the present OA is a misuse of judicial forum and killing crucial time of the Bench. After 34 years, the applicant has come before this Tribunal and for his deliberate and willful default in not being prompt, the delay condonation application may be dismissed at this stage.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents further stated that the applicant has not given satisfactory and reasonable reason as to why he could not approach this Tribunal in time. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. T.T. Murali Babu - (2014)4 SCC 108 [LQ/SC/2000/250] . Learned counsel has referred to para 16 of this judgment, which is being reproduced below:-

"16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and latches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising and extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court, it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at the belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances, delay and latches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of the litigant - a litigant who has forgotten is thief of time and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis."

10. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. N. Murugesan dated 07.10.2021. Learned counsel emphasized that it is essential to see length of delay and nature of acts done during the intervals. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. K. Thangappan - (2006) 4 SCC 322 [LQ/SC/2006/297] .

11. From the arguments and counter arguments, it is very clear that in the objection, the respondents have not taken the specific issue of continuing cause of action and have not been able to controvert how the case of the applicant does not fall within the category of continuing cause of action. Hence, we are convinced by the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that the case of the applicant falls within the definition of continuing cause of action and to that extent there is a case of condonation of delay in terms of the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M.R. Gupta (Supra) and Taresm Singh (Supra).

12. In view of the forgoing discussions, MA No. 1832/2022 is allowed and the delay in filing OA being Diary No. 2450/22 is condoned and the matter is admitted. Registry is directed to allot regular number to the case.

13. Let the learned counsel for the respondents file counter within four weeks. The learned counsel for the applicant may file rejoinder, if any, within two weeks thereafter.

14. List the matter on 14.02.2023 before the Registrar for completion of pleadings.