N.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were employees of the Military Engineer Services ("MES" for short), who commenced service as Lower Division Clerks on various dates between 1964 and 1965 and retired again on various dates between 2003 and 2005. The entire controversy in the present Original Petition revolves around the upgradation of a post and fixation of pay with Special Pay with effect from 1.1.1996.

(2.) IT was claimed before the Tribunal as also before us that the 5th Central Pay Commission recommended that 10% of the posts of Upper division Clerks in subordinate offices, to which Special Pay is attached, may be placed in a higher scale and the post was re-designated as "Assistant". The petitioners were all, based on their seniority, promoted as Assistants and was given effective seniority from the date of assumption of post. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 5th Central Pay Commission recommended the effective date to be 1.1.1996 and the official respondents failed to give effect to the said recommendation in the case of the petitioners alone.

(3.) WE do not think that the order of the Tribunal can be interfered with at the instance of the petitioners. There is absolutely no explanation for the delay and laches and they sat over their rights. The Tribunal's direction to confine the payment of arrears to three years prior to the filing of the Original Applications by reason only of delay is fortified by the judgment in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648. In Tarsem Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, based on precedents, distinguished the principles underlying continuing wrongs and recurring/successive wrongs, as applied to service law disputes. The Supreme Court referred to Shiv Dass v. Union of India, (2007) 9 SCC 274, and extracted para 10 of the said decision: