M.R. GUPTA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 852 · Decided: 21-08-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M.R. GUPTA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 21, 1995 
B 
[J.S. VERMA AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.) 
Service Law: 
Railway Fundamental Rules/Fundamental Rules and Supplementary 
C Rules: 
Rule No. 2018 B!FR 22-C-Fixation of pay-Period of Limita-
tion-Held, claim of an employee to be paid correct salary on proper pay 
fixation is a recurring course of action-Subsists during entire tenure of 
service-Can be exercised at the time of each payment of salary-ls a right 
D akin to right of redemption. 
E 
F 
The appellant, an employee with the State Government of Punjab, 
on joining the service in the Railways in 1978, challenged fixation of his 
pay, claiming that he was entitled to fixation of his pay after adding one 
increment which he would have drawn on 1.8.1978 in accordance with Rule 
No. 2018 (N.R.S.N. 6447) equivalent to Fundamental Rule 22-C. His rep-
resentation was rejected before coming into force of the Administrative 
Tribunals Act, 1985. Later on 4.9.1989, the appellant, filed an application 
before the Central Administrative Tribunal which dismissed the claim as 
time barred. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the appeal by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the Tribunal, for 
consideration of the application of the appellant on merits, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The claim of an employee to be paid the correct salary 
computed on the basis of proper pay fixation, is a right which subsists 
G during the entire tenure of service and can be exercised at the time of each 
payment of the salary when the employee is entitled to salary computed 
c~rrectly in accordance with the rules. This right 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 enquiry of redemption is 
H extinguished. (855-C-D] 
852 
M.R. GUPTA v. U.0.1. [VERMA,J.] 
853 
Thota China Subba Rao and Ors. v. Mattapalli Raju and Ors. AIR A 
(1950) Federal Court 1, relied on. 
S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1989) Supp. 1 SCR 43, held 
in applicable. 
1.2. The Tribunal overlooked the crux of the matter and misdirected B 
itself when it treated the appellant's claim as 'one time action'. 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 salary which was not 
computed in accordance with rules. However his claim, if any, for recovery C 
of arrears calculated on the basis of difference in the pay which has become 
time barred, has to be considered and decided alongwith other consequen-
tial reliefs in accordance with law in due course by the Tribunal. 
(854-E-F; G-H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7510 of D 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.5.92 of the Delhi High Court 
in O.A. No. 1809 of 1989. 
A.K. Sikri and Ms. Madhu Sikri for the Appellants. 
K. Lahiri, A.K. Sharma and P. Narasimaha for the Respondents. 
' 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
VERMA, J. Leave granted. 
The only question for decision is : Whether the impugned judgment 
of the Tribunal dismissing as time barred the application made by the 
appellant for proper fixation of his pay is contrary to law? Only a few facts 
are material for deciding this point. 
E 
F 
The appellant joined the service of the State of Punjab as G 
·oemonstrator in the Government Polytechnic in 1967. Thereafter, he 
joined service in the railways in 1978. The appellant claimed that the 
fixation of his pay on his joining service in the railways was incorrect and . 
that he was entitled to fixation of his pay after adding one increment to the 
pay which he would have draw on 1.8.1978 in accordance with Rule No. 
2018 (N.R.S.N. 6447) equivalent to Fundamental Rule 22-C. The repre- H 
854 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
sentation of the appellant to this effect was rejected before coming into 
force of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The appellant then filed 
an application on 4.9.1989 before the Tribunal praying inter alia for proper 
fixation of his initial pay with effect from 1.8.1978 and certain consequential 
benefits. The application was contested by the respondents on the ground 
that it was time barred since the cause of action had arisen at the time of 
B 
th~ initial fixation of his pay in 1978 or latest on rejection of his repre-
sentation· before c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.