Court holds that pay fixation errors constitute continuing wrong only during service tenure; post-retirement pension claims arising from pay fixation disputes barred by delay and laches
In a significant judgment dated September 28, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, through Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, dismissed a writ petition filed by Kundan Lal seeking refixation of his pay scale and consequential pension benefits. The petitioner, a retired Under-Matric Lab Attendant from a government-aided college in Haryana, had sought parity in pay scale with Matriculate Lab Attendants, arguing that his duties and responsibilities were identical to theirs. He contended that the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 should be applied instead of Rs. 775-1025, and consequentially, his pension should be recalculated on this basis.
The petitioner's claim was rooted in a 2008 judgment by a coordinate bench of the same High Court, which had granted such parity benefits to Under-Matric Lab Attendants in government colleges and was implemented by the State Government in 2009 with effect from 1986. Despite this, the petitioner was denied the benefit, as he was employed in a government-aided college, not a government college. His pension order was issued in December 2013, following his retirement in May 2013. The writ petition was filed in 2026, over a decade after retirement.
The Court examined the legal principle regarding delay and laches in service-related claims, emphasizing that the fundamental grievance was the alleged wrong pay fixation during service, not an independent pensionary wrong. It reiterated that an incorrect pay fixation is a continuing wrong only during the service period, as the deficient salary is paid monthly. Upon retirement, the alleged wrong crystallizes into a completed act, and pension deficiency flowing from it is merely a consequence, not a continuing cause of action.
The Court cited extensive precedent, including Supreme Court judgments and its own prior rulings, to underscore that stale claims raised after superannuation cannot be revived by recharacterizing them as pension disputes. It stressed that repeated representations or delayed actions after retirement do not create a fresh cause of action or extend limitation periods. The principle of equity was highlighted, stating that "fence-sitters" who sleep over their rights cannot seek relief at their convenience.
The Court outlined a three-category classification of service claims for delay analysis:
- 1. Claims barred by delay, including one-time acts and post-retirement pay fixation disputes dressed as pension claims;
- 2. Continuing wrong cases, such as wrong pay fixation during service or pensionary wrongs, where relief may be granted but arrears limited to three years;
- 3. Exceptional pension cases, such as family pension and disability pension, where arrears flow from the date of entitlement.
Applying these principles, the Court found that the petitioner's claim fell in the first category and was barred by delay and laches since no sufficient explanation was offered for the long inaction. The Court dismissed the petition, refusing to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
This judgment reaffirms the settled legal position that service-related pay fixation claims must be pursued during service tenure and cannot be belatedly revived after retirement by recasting them as pension claims. It also reiterates the judicial reluctance to entertain stale claims that unsettle settled matters, promoting vigilance and promptness among government employees in asserting their rights.
Bottom Line:
Service law - Delay and laches - Claim for refixation of pay raised after retirement cannot be revived by describing it as a pension dispute - Wrong fixation of pay is a continuing wrong only during service - After superannuation, pension deficiency flowing from alleged wrong pay fixation is only a consequence of a completed act - Repeated representations do not extend limitation or create fresh cause of action - Writ petition filed more than a decade after retirement dismissed.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 6 of the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979
Kundan Lal v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2991869
