1 2026:CGHC:23065-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3939 of 2026 1. Dibakar Dutta S/o Late Putiram Dutta Aged About 60 Years (Presently Aged About 70 Years) Retired Pointman Under C.Y.M./ Bijuri/secr R/o Vivekanand Colony Ward No.1 Chanawariband Manendragarh Distt- Koriya (C.G.) 491442 ... Petitioner versus 1. Union of India Through- General Manager South East Central Railway Bilaspur Zone Headquarters Office Bilaspur (C.G.) 495004 2. The Divisional Railway Manager South East Central Railway Bilaspur (C.G.) 495004 3. The Senior Divisional Operations Manager S.E.C. Railway Bilaspur (C.G.) 495004 4. The Chief Mining Adviser Railway Board Dhanbad (Bihar) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. A.V. Shridhar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General along with Mr. Neeraj Baghel, Advocate SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 DB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu,J & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, j Order on Board Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J 14.05.2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 12.08.2025 passed in O.A. No.203/721/20216by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench. 10.3. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant relief as claimed by the petitioner in the O.A. No.203/721/2016. 10.4. Any other relief in the facts and circumstances of the case which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may be passed.” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner was appointed in the Railway Department as Sample Khalasi in the scale of Rs.196-232/- w.e.f. 20.1.1977 and posted under Chief Mining Adviser, Railway Board, Dhanbad. In the year 1994, number of employees, including petitioner herein, were declared surplus due to winding up of coal organization (closure of steam loco sheds). Petitioner along with others was screened 3 for alternative job in the Railways and was spared for Asansol Division. Petitioner requested for his absorption against ‘D’ category vacancies in Bilaspur Division, which was allowed vide order dated 05.12.1994 and he was absorbed in Bilaspur Division in ‘D’ category in the grade of Rs.740-940/-and posted as Pointman in Bijuri Station, however, the petitioner was not allowed the same basic already drawn by him i.e. Rs.1050/- with allowance. Petitioner submitted representation before the authority concerned seeking pay protection from the date of his absorption in Bilaspur Division, w.e.f. 5.12.1994, on the ground that according to instructions contained in Railway Establishment Board No.129/2022 dated 08.08.20002, after declaring surplus, petitioner ought to have been redeployed on a special supernumerary post in the same grade which he was drawing when declared surplus. Petitioner stood retired from service on 31.5.2015 and his representation remains undecided. Petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench (for short ‘the Tribunal’), by filing Original Application No.203/721/2016 seeking a direction for respondents to consider his pending representation and initiate action to protect his pay and emoluments drawn while being declared surplus and to recalculate the pension and other retiral benefits within a time bound period. The Tribunal dismissed the original application 4 holding it to be barred by limitation period prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act of 1985’). 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that according to REB No.129/2002, the employees declared surplus are required to be redeployed by creating a special supernumerary post in the same grade. Petitioner was declared surplus in the scale of 800-1150/- and therefore, he could not have been absorbed in the lower grade of Rs.750-940/- and as such, present is the case of wrong fixation of pay-scale/grade. In cases of wrong fixation of pay to which an employee is entitled under relevant rules/instructions/guidelines, question of any limitation would not come because a fresh cause of action would arise every month in favour of such employee when he/she is paid salary which, according to him/her, is not computed according to the relevant rules/instructions. Hence, the Tribunal erred in dismissing original application on the ground that it is barred by limitation, considering the period of limitation from 1994 when the petitioner was absorbed in Bilaspur Division and received less salary for the first time. In support of his contention, he places reliance on decisions in case of Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 and Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak vs Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation reported in (2022) 18 SCC 1014. 5 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposes submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and supported the order passed by the Tribunal. He submits that petitioner was absorbed on 5.12.1994 in the grade pay of Rs.750-940/-, whereas representation for pay protection and retiral dues was submitted on 25.3.2015. He submits that filing of original application after lapse of 22 years since the initial fixation in the year 1994, was hopelessly barred by time. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly dismissed the original application on the ground that it was time barred. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available in record of writ petition. 6. Indisputably, petitioner was declared in surplus in the year 1994 and on request being made by him, he was absorbed in ‘D” category in Bilaspur Division in the grade of 750-940/-, whereas he was drawing pay-scale of Rs.800-1150/- at the time of absorption. Despite submission of representation, grade pay of petitioner was not fixed in terms of RBE 129/2002 and in the meantime, petitioner stood retired from service. Thereafter, petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing an original application for redressal of his grievance. 7. From perusal of order impugned it is evident that the Tribunal dismissed petitioner’s original application on the ground that it 6 is barred by limitation period, recording that cause of action arose in the year 1994 and original application has been filed in the year 2016, without explaining the reasons not to approach the Tribunal within the limitation period of one year from the date of cause of action, as provided in Section 21 of the Act of 1985. 8. Thus, from the pleadings available in record it is appearing that grievance of petitioner is only with regard to fixation of grade pay according to relevant rules/instruction, which was dismissed by the Tribunal being barred by limitation on the ground that cause of action in favour of petitioner arose in the year 1994 and original application has been filed in the year 2016. 9. In case of M.R. Gupta vs Union of India, reported in (1995) 5 SCC 628, Hon’ble Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with the concept of continuing wrong which had given a rise to a recurring cause of action. In that case, petitioner therein has approached the High Court in the year 1989 with a grievance in regard to his initial pay fixation with effect from 1.8.1978. The claim was rejected as it was raised after 11 years. In such a situation, it was held that a fresh cause of action arose every month when the incumbent therein was paid his monthly salary on the basis of a wrong computation. Relevant portion of said decision is extracted below: 7 “4.The Tribunal has upheld the respondents' objection based on the ground of limitation. It has been held that the appellant had been expressly told by the order dated 12.8.1985 and by another letter dated 7.3.1987 that his pay had been correctly fixed so that he should have assailed that order at that time "Which was one time action," The Tribunal held that the raising of this matter after lapse of 11 years since the initial pay fixation in 1978 was hopelessly barred by time. Accordingly, the application was dismissed as time barred without going into the merits of the appellant's claim for proper pay fixation. "5. Having heard both sides, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has missed the real point and overlooked the crux of the matter. The appellant's grievance that his pay fixation was not in accordance with the rules, was the assertion of a continuing wrong against him which gave rise to a recurring cause of action each time he was paid a 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 a wrong computation made contrary to rules. ........." 6. The Tribunal misdirected itself when it treated the appellant's claim as "one time action" meaning thereby that it was not a continuing wrong based on a recurring cause of action. The claim to be paid the correct salary computed on the basis of proper pay fixation, is a right which subsists during the entire tenure of service and can be exercised at the time of 8 each payment of the salary when the employee is entitled to salary computed correctly in accordance with the rules. His right of a Government servant to be paid the correct salary throughout his tenure according to computation made in accordance with the rules, is akin to the right of redemption which is an incident of a subsisting mortgage and subsists so long as the mortgage itself subsists, unless the equity of redemption is extinguished..” 10. In case of Tarsem Singh (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court summarizing two propositions as to when a delay in assailing a decision is condonable and as to where the delay would render the claim stale resulting in application of the doctrine of laches, has held as under:- “7.To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, 9 then the claim will not be entertained. For example, 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. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied....." 11. From the law laid down in the above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with the claim regarding fixation of pay-scale/pension, it is clear that if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the right of third parties. Further, as long as the employee is in service, a fresh cause of action would arise every month when they are paid their salary/pension on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to the rules. 12. Considering the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that the ground on which, Tribunal dismissed petitioner’s original application being barred by limitation, seems to be not sustainable. Claim of petitioner for fixation of his grade/ pay-scale in accordance with governing rules/instructions cannot be treated as time barred because cause of action is recurring and accrues every month when the petitioner was paid his monthly salary 10 on the basis of computation made contrary to the rules/instruction applicable. 13. In view of discussions made herein above, the impugned order of the Tribunal that original application was barred by limitation cannot be sustained. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for decision on merits in accordance with law. 14. As the matter has become quite old and the petitioner is a superannuated septuagenarian, it is hoped and expected that the Tribunal will dispose of the matter expeditiously. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge roshan/-