Chander Lekha v. State Of Haryana And Others
CWP-6468-2023(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CWP-6468-2023(O&M) Date of decision: 13.08.2024 Chander Lekha
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present :
Mr. Abhinav Rawal, Advocate for Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Tapan Kumar, DAG, Haryana.
***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral) 1.
The prayer made in the present petition is for directing the respondents to grant the revised pay scale of Rs.13500-17250/- w.e.f 01.01.1996 to the deceased husband of the petitioner in terms of judgment of this Court in Dr. K.L. Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others 1 , the appeal and review application against which, filed by the State before the Division Bench were dismissed vide orders dated 10.08.2010 and 07.08.2013 respectively and so was the SLP before Hon'ble the Supreme Court on 12.10.2018. 2.
Learned State counsel though has not been able to controvert the applicability of the aforesaid judgment, however, resists the petition on the solitary premise of delay in approaching the Department to claim the same, which is untenable in view of the law laid down in M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India 2 , wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that application for proper pay fixation 1 CWP-10506-2002, decided on 06.10.2009 2 (1995) 5 SCC 628 HAMANT 2024.08.21 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment
CWP-6468-2023(O&M) cannot be treated as time barred since it is based on a recurring cause of action, which arises every month when the employee is paid his monthly salary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to rules. Further, by relying on the said dictum in Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh 3 , it was observed and held that if the issue relates to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay, as it does not affect the rights of third parties. 3.
It would be highly unjust and inequitable to deny the family of the employee the benefit that accrues to them, especially in wake of the fact that despite their case being covered on all fours by KL Kumar (supra), they are receiving lesser amount of pension each month, which creates a continuing source of injury, thus is a continuing wrong.
4.
This Court, while relying on the judgment in LPA-930-2010, State of Haryana and another vs. K.L. Kumar and others, decided on 10.08.2010, granted similar relief in a batch of petitions, with lead CWP-15887-2011, Jagdish Chander Narang and others vs. State of Haryana, on 11.03.2019, which was also not taken up in appeal.
5.
In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in KL Kumar (supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 13.08.2024 Hemant Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes / No Whether reportable :
Yes / No 3 (2008) 8 SCC 648, HAMANT 2024.08.21 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment