Introduction:

In a significant pronouncement strengthening service jurisprudence and employee rights, the Gauhati High Court has held that a challenge to wrongful pay fixation cannot be rejected solely on the ground of delay when the grievance discloses a continuing or recurring cause of action. The ruling was delivered by Justice Kardak Ete in Dalimi Kalita v. Assam Power Distribution Company Limited & Ors., WP(C) No. 3988 of 2022. The Court directed reconsideration and refixation of pay in favour of an Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife (ANM) who had been placed in a lower pay scale than other similarly situated employees despite holding the same post. The judgment reaffirms the principle that substantive justice cannot be sacrificed at the altar of technical delay, especially where the wrong complained of is continuing in nature and affects the employee month after month.

Factual Background:

The petitioner, Dalimi Kalita, was appointed as an Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife (ANM) in the year 1992 under the Assam State Electricity Board, which was later reorganised and is now known as Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL). At the time of her appointment, she was placed in the pay scale of ₹1025–35–1375–EB–40–1655/- along with admissible allowances. The petitioner discharged her duties diligently for decades, believing her pay fixation to be in accordance with applicable rules.

Over time, however, it came to her notice that other ANMs who were similarly situated and appointed around the same period were granted a higher pay scale of ₹1085–40–1245–1425–EB–50–1925/- per month with corresponding allowances. One such example cited was that of Rukhomati Mosahary, who held the same post of ANM and was extended the higher scale. The petitioner contended that there was no difference in duties, responsibilities, qualifications, or service conditions that could justify such disparity.

Aggrieved by this apparent anomaly, the petitioner submitted representations before the respondent authorities seeking correction of her pay scale and parity with other ANMs. However, the respondent APDCL rejected her claim not on merits, but solely on the ground that the grievance had been raised after nearly 30 years from the date of her initial appointment. This rejection prompted the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner:

On behalf of the petitioner, it was argued that the denial of pay parity was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner submitted that she was holding the same post of Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife as other employees who were granted a higher pay scale and that there was no rational basis for treating her differently. The core of her grievance was not merely historical but continuing in nature, as the incorrect pay fixation resulted in lower salary and allowances being paid to her every month.

It was contended that the respondent authorities committed a manifest error by rejecting her claim solely on the ground of delay without examining the issue on merits. The petitioner emphasized that wrong pay fixation gives rise to a recurring cause of action, since every payment of salary based on an incorrect scale perpetuates the injustice. Therefore, the doctrine of limitation could not be mechanically applied to defeat her legitimate claim.

The petitioner further relied upon the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2017, pointing out that the Rules treated “Midwife” and “Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife (ANM)” as the same post with the same Pay Band and Grade Pay. According to the petitioner, the Rules clearly reflected parity between the posts, thereby reinforcing her claim that she was entitled to the same scale as other ANMs. The petitioner also submitted that the discrepancy in pay fixation was likely inadvertent at the time of her initial appointment and ought to be rectified once brought to the notice of the authorities.

Arguments on Behalf of the Respondents:

The respondent authorities, APDCL and others, resisted the writ petition primarily on the ground of delay and laches. It was submitted that the petitioner had accepted her pay scale at the time of appointment and continued in service for nearly three decades without raising any objection. According to the respondents, such belated claims disrupt administrative certainty and financial planning and therefore ought not to be entertained by the Court.

The respondents argued that service matters relating to pay fixation must be raised within a reasonable time and that reopening settled issues after several decades would open the floodgates for similar claims. It was further contended that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any enforceable legal right that survived after such a long lapse of time. The authorities maintained that the claim was stale and barred by delay, and on this basis alone, the rejection of the petitioner’s representation was justified.

Significantly, the respondents did not place any substantial material on record to justify the difference in pay scale on merits, nor did they dispute that other ANMs appointed around the same time had been granted a higher scale. Their defence remained confined largely to the technical plea of delay.

Issues for Consideration:

The principal issue before the Gauhati High Court was whether a claim relating to wrong pay fixation could be rejected solely on the ground of delay when the grievance disclosed a continuing or recurring cause of action. Ancillary to this was the question of whether the petitioner, being an ANM, was entitled to parity in pay with other similarly situated ANMs under the applicable service and pay revision rules.

Court’s Analysis and Findings:

Justice Kardak Ete undertook a careful examination of the factual matrix and the legal principles governing limitation and continuing causes of action in service matters. At the outset, the Court observed that there was no serious dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner and other ANMs were holding the same post and that at least one similarly situated ANM had been granted a higher pay scale.

The Court strongly disapproved of the approach adopted by the respondent authorities in rejecting the petitioner’s claim solely on the ground of delay. Justice Ete held that in cases involving continuing or recurring wrongs, the concept of limitation cannot be applied in a rigid or mechanical manner. The Court observed that wrong pay fixation is not a one-time act but a continuing wrong, as its effects are felt every month when salary is disbursed on the basis of an incorrect scale.

In this context, the Court categorically held that “in respect of any continuing / recurring cause of action, no application can be barred on the ground of limitation.” The Court clarified that while delay may be relevant in determining the extent of monetary relief, it cannot be used as a tool to deny consideration of the claim on merits altogether.

The Court then examined the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2017, and noted that the Rules clearly placed “Midwife/ANM” in the same Pay Band and Grade Pay. Upon a careful reading of the Rules, Justice Ete concluded that Midwife and ANM were not two distinct posts carrying different pay scales, but were one and the same post for the purpose of pay fixation. Therefore, the Court held that it could not be said that the petitioner was holding a different or inferior post so as to justify lower pay.

The Court further observed that the respondent authorities had failed to consider the petitioner’s grievance on merits and had not offered any rational explanation for the discrepancy in pay fixation. On the contrary, the available records, including the Revision of Pay Rules, 2017, supported the petitioner’s claim that there was a clear discrepancy, possibly arising from an inadvertent error at the time of her initial appointment.

Relief Granted by the Court:

Having found merit in the petitioner’s grievance, the Gauhati High Court directed the respondent authorities to reconsider and refix the pay and allowances of the petitioner at par with other similarly situated Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife employees of APDCL. The Court ordered that this exercise be carried out expeditiously and in any case not later than 60 days from the date of the judgment.

However, while granting parity in pay, the Court exercised judicial restraint with regard to arrears. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648, the Court restricted the petitioner’s claim for arrears to a period of three years preceding the date of demand, i.e., from 21.02.2020. The Court thus balanced the interests of the employee with administrative and financial considerations, ensuring that justice was done without imposing an undue burden on the public exchequer.

Court’s Judgment:

In conclusion, the Gauhati High Court allowed the writ petition and held that rejection of a pay fixation claim solely on the ground of delay is impermissible where the grievance discloses a continuing or recurring wrong. The Court directed the respondent authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s case on merits, refix her pay at par with other similarly situated ANMs, and grant consequential benefits, subject to restriction of arrears to three years from the date of demand. The writ petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of.