RSA No.1917 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.1917 of 2004 Date of Decision: 23.10.2008 State of Punjab and others .....Appellants Vs. Tej Ram and others ....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. H.S. Gill, DAG, Punjab for the appellants. Mr. B.S.Kathuria, Advocate for respondent no.1 .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) This judgement shall dispose of RSA No.1917 and 1923 of 2004, as they arise from the same judgement. The State of Punjab challenges the judgements and decrees dated 28.4.2000 and 14.2.2003, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda and the District Judge, Bhatinda, respectively, partly decreeing the suit filed by respondent no.1 and dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Punjab and accepting the appeal filed by respondent no.1. The plaintiff-respondent no.1 joined service as a Patwari on 1.1.1958. He retired as Naib Tehsildar on 31.8.1995 in his own pay scale of a Kanungo. After retirement, he filed a suit claiming promotion, seniority with all other consequential benefits. The defendants-appellants opposed the prayer in the suit on various grounds and submitted that respondent no.1 RSA No.1917 of 2004 2 was not entitled to promotion, proficiency step up etc. on account of adverse annual confidential reports. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues :- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for ? OPP. 2. Relief.” After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial Court partly decreed the suit by holding that the plaintiff is entitled to refixation of his pay as Kanungo w.e.f. 22.12.1980, proficiency step up w.e.f. 22.12.1988, refixation of his pay @ Rs.700/- p.m. from 14.8.1981, fixation of selection grade and to be considered for the post of Saddar Kanungo w.e.f. 12.10.1991 and for the post of Naib Tehsildar w.e.f. 14.1.1992. The consequential benefits were, however, restricted to a period of three years and two months, preceding the filing of the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, both parties filed separate appeals. The State of Punjab challenged the judgment and decree in its entirety, whereas the appellant challenged the confining of consequential benefits to a period of three years and two months. The District Judge, Bathinda, vide judgment and decree dated 14.2.2003 dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Punjab, but accepted the appeal filed by respondent no.1 and held that respondent no.1 would be entitled to arrears and all consequential benefits from the date the arrears became due till the date of decree passed by the learned trial Court with 12% interest and thereafter with interest @ 9% p.a. till the date of realisation. RSA No.1917 of 2004 3 The appeal was admitted on 7.12.2004 on the question, whether arrears beyond three years could have been granted by the first appellate Court. Counsel for the appellants submits that as the trial Court confined arrears to 38 months preceding the filing of the suit, the first appellate Court had no jurisdiction to reverse this finding and hold that as denial of salary to respondent no.1 was a continuing wrong, the arrears could not be confined to a period of 38 months before the filing of the suit. It is submitted that the first appellate Court has not assigned any reasons for this conclusion and even otherwise, as the suit was filed in 1997 for relief relating to matters arising from the year 1980, the first appellate Court could not have granted arrears from 1980, 1981, 1991 and 1992. Counsel for respondent no.1, however, submits that as respondent no.1 was denied re-fixation of his pay etc. from the dates referred to in the judgment, the first appellate court rightly held that respondent no.1 would be entitled to arrears from the date they became due. It is submitted that as the impugned judgment does not suffer from any error, the appeal be dismissed. As noticed herein above, the trial Court held that consequential benefits/arrears of salary etc. would be confined to a period of 38 months preceding the filing of the suit. The first appellate Court, reversed this finding and held that respondent no.1 would be entitled to the entire arrears i.e. from the year 1980 onwards. The first appellate Court ignored the fact that respondent no.1 filed the suit in 1997 i.e. after his retirement on 31.8.1995, for reliefs pertaining to matters arising from the years 1980, 1981, 1991 and 1992. Though wrong re-fixation of salary gives rise to a RSA No.1917 of 2004 4 recurring cause of action, but belated claims for arrears of salary must be restricted to a period of 38 months preceding the filing of a suit. The first appellate Court apparently confused the two issues, namely; the issue of limitation and the issue of consequential benefits and, as a result, proceeded to grant consequential benefits from 1980,1981, 1991 and 1992. Failure to fix the salary correctly gives rise to a recurring cause of action but failure to approach a Court expeditiously for redressal of such a grievance disentitles an employee to claim arrears from the date the cause initially arose. It has been repeatedly held that such belated claims for refixation of salary and arrears should be confined to a reasonable period, preceding the filing of the suit, namely; a period of 38 months. The question of law framed at the time of the admission of the appeal is, therefore, answered accordingly. The appeal is partly allowed and the judgement and decree passed by the first appellate Court granting arrears from the dates they became due is set aside and the judgement and decree passed by the trial Court is restored. No costs. 23.10.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE