The Rajasthan High Court has held that the short-payment or denial of due pensionary benefits constitutes a "continuing wrong," which gives rise to a fresh, recurring cause of action with every single month the pension is paid incorrectly.

The Court clarified that where an ex-serviceman is already in receipt of a pension and merely seeks its correct re-computation, such as a retrospective pay-scale revision following trade rationalization, the claim cannot be defeated by pleas of limitation or laches.

The Court said that since a pension is a continuous right and its miscalculation does not affect or prejudice any third-party rights, an inordinate delay in approaching the legal forum cannot be used by the State as a ground to restrict the release of full financial arrears.

The Division Bench of Justice Puspendra Singh Bahti and Justice Nupur Bhati observed, "This Court is of the considered view that the claim pertaining to arrears arising out of pensionary benefits constitutes a continuing wrong, giving rise to a recurring and successive cause of action with each denial or short payment of the pension due to the claimant, in light of the judgment passed in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra). In the present case, no third-party rights have been created; therefore, any delay in filing the original application does not adversely affect or prejudice the rights of any third party."

Advocate Tirupati Chandra appeared for the Petitioners, while Advocate Dharampal Singh Dhaka appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts

The respondent-original applicant was enrolled in the Indian Air Force and, upon completing his qualifying service, was discharged in the rank of Master Warrant Officer, Group-II, following which he was sanctioned service pension. Subsequently, he claimed that pursuant to the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission, the trade of “Education Instructor,” in which he had served, stood upgraded from Group-II to Group ‘X’, thereby entitling him to revised pay, allowances, and consequential pensionary benefits.

The competent authorities rejected his representations on the ground that the trade rationalization was prospective and did not operate retrospectively to cover personnel who retired prior to its implementation. Aggrieved, the respondent preferred an Original Application before the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, which disposed of the matter with liberty to approach the authorities for benefits in terms of settled precedent. The review application filed by the petitioners against the said order was also dismissed, which led to the filing of the instant writ petition.

Contentions of the Parties

It was contended by the Petitioner that the respondent was discharged from service and granted pension in accordance with the rules applicable at the time of his retirement. It was submitted that the trade rationalization was purely prospective in nature without any retrospective application, and hence, personnel who retired prior to the implementation were not entitled to the revised scales.

It was further argued that since the original application was filed after an inordinate delay, the learned Tribunal gravely erred in not restricting the arrears to a period of three years prior to the institution of the proceedings, in light of the settled law governing belated service claims.

The Respondent countered that the order passed by the Tribunal was legal, well-reasoned, and based upon settled principles of law. It was submitted that the controversy was no longer res integra and stood conclusively settled by the Supreme Court in similar matters involving the re-computation of pensionary benefits.

It was further argued that the recommendations of the Committee of Experts clearly envisaged that the revised and rationalized scales were bound to take effect from the inception of the pay commission's implementation, and any subsequent executive instruction restricting the same was null and void.

Observations and Findings of the Court

The High Court observed that the report of the Ministry of Defence clearly reflected that the revised pay scales arising out of the implementation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission were required to be extended to personnel from the date of the commission's inception, and the restriction giving prospective effect was considered null and void.

It was held that once an anomaly in pay scales is found and removed, it must be removed from the date of its inception with full arrears, rather than from an artificial future cut-off date.

"From the perusal of the report of the Ministry of Defence, it appears that anomaly that crept in, has been removed by giving the clarification that the revised pay scales arising out of the 5th Central Pay Commission, are required to be given effect from 01.01.1996 and once the anomaly has been removed, the contention of the petitioners that the Gazette Notification of the Government of India dated 10.10.1997 cannot be given a retrospective effect to the personnel like the respondent who was discharged from service with effect from 31.08.1996, does not hold water, and thus, as far as the issue No.1 is concerned, the learned Tribunal has committed no error", the Court held.

The Court also found that the bar regarding restriction of arrears to three years was not applicable, as the right to approach the Tribunal accrued to the respondent only after the publication of the expert committee report, and further, the respondent was already in receipt of pension and merely sought re-computation.

It was noted that the claim pertaining to arrears of pensionary benefits constitutes a continuing wrong, giving rise to a recurring and successive cause of action, and since no third-party rights were created, the delay did not adversely affect any third party.

The Court observed that the petitioners were fully aware that the issue stood settled by the Apex Court in similar matters, yet they denied the respondent similar treatment without any plausible or legally sustainable explanation.

The Court observed, "Despite having the knowledge of the aforesaid facts, the petitioners have denied the respondent similar treatment that has already been extended to the above-said similarly situated employee. No plausible, cogent, or legally sustainable explanation has been furnished by the petitioners to justify such discriminatory treatment, meted out to the respondent, who has been constrained to pursue this litigation for nearly nine years. Such conduct on part of the petitioners is wholly contrary to the principles of equality, fairness, and fair play, and amounts to gross arbitrariness."

It was concluded that such conduct on the part of the petitioners was wholly contrary to the principles of equality, fairness, and fair play, and amounted to gross arbitrariness, thereby warranting the dismissal of the writ petition with exemplary costs.

Cause Title: Union of India and Ors. v. No. 610812A Ex MWO Prabhu Singh Shekhawat [Neutral Citation:2026:RJ-JD:25389-DB]

Appearances:

Petitioners: Advocate Tirupati Chandra

Respondent: Advocate Dharampal Singh Dhaka

Click here to read/download the Judgment

Tags: