IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.: 527 of 2007 Date of decision: 22.9.2008 Sita Ram Madalk …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. P.P.Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy.A.G. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This petition is directed against the order of the learned H.P.State Administrative Tribunal dated 18th September, 2006 passed in O.A. No. 3095 of 2001. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was serving in the department of Education in the State of Himachal Pradesh. He joined service on 4th May, 1959. According to the petitioner, at the time when he joined service he was already possessing the higher qualification of inter-mediate. A notification was issued by the State Government whereby persons who acquired higher qualification during the pendency of service were granted higher pay-scale. This notification was later on clarified by the State Government in the year 1989. In the clarification, it was stated that the Junior Teachers who were possessing the higher qualification even at the time of entering service were entitled to this benefit. It is pertinent to mention that this letter was issued on 8th March, 1989. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation on 3rd February, 1998 claiming benefit on the basis of the notification dated 8th 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. March, 1989. No order was passed on this and thereafter, the petitioner filed the original application in December, 2001. The learned Tribunal has rejected this appeal on two grounds. Firstly, that the petitioner on merits was not entitled to any relief and secondly, that the original application was hopelessly time barred. On 27.4.2007, the petitioner was directed to file a supplementary affidavit giving his date of birth as well as his date of retirement. This affidavit has been filed and according to the affidavit, the petitioner retired from the education department on 31st December, 1998. Under Section 21 of the H.P.Tribunal Act, the limitation for filing an original application is one year. In case of a representation being made but not being decided and the party can avail of a further period of six months time from the date of representation and thereafter one more year is added, i.e. party must approach the learned Tribunal within one year and six months of the representation being made. In this case, admittedly, the original application was filed more than three and half years after the representation was filed. Shri P.P.Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgement of the apex Court in M.R.Gupta vs. Union of India and others, (1995) 5 SCC 628, wherein the apex Court in relation to salary held as follows:- “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 each payment of the salary when the employee is entitled to salary computed correctly in accordance with the rules. This 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. It is settled that the right of redemption is of this kind. (See Thota China Subba Rao vs. Mattapalli Raju). The facts of the present case are totally different. Here the petitioner during the period prior to his retirement, except for filing a representation did not take any step whatsoever to vindicate his rights. About three years after his retirement he filed the original application. His claim relates back to the year 1989. It has been urged by Shri Chauhan that while granting relief to the petitioner payment of arrears may be restricted to a period of three years. We are unable to accept this contention. Once the petitioner had made a representation, it was his duty to approach the Tribunal within the time prescribed under law. Even if the action is continuing cause of action the right emanates from a one time claim to claim higher scale of pay in accordance with the notification. Admittedly, this right arose in the year 1989. No explanation has been given for the delay of more than 12 years in filing the original application. We, therefore, without going into the merits of the case, reject the petition, solely on the ground that the petitioner’s original application before the learned Tribunal was miserably time barred. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. September 22, 2008 ( V.K Ahuja ), J. ™