Sri R Hanumatha Singh Vs. State Of Karnataka - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1 in the high court of karnataka at bengaluru r dated this the23d day of october, 2020 before the hon'ble mr. justice m. nagaprasanna writ petition no.54571/2018 (s – res) between sri r.hanumatha singh s/o late arjun singh aged about68years, no.543, 1st a cross, 31st main, banageri nagara, banashankari2d stage bengaluru – 560 085. ... petitioner (by sri kesavareddy m., advocate (physical hearing)) and1 state of karnataka rep. by its chief secretary, vidhana soudha, bengaluru – 560 001.2. the managing director karnataka power transmission corporation limited, cauvery bhavan, k.g.road, bengaluru – 560 009.3. the director administration and human resources, karnataka power transmission2corporation limited, cauvery bhavan, k.g.road, bengaluru – 560 009. ... respondents (by sri.....

Judgment:

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE23D DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.54571/2018 (S – RES) BETWEEN SRI R.HANUMATHA SINGH S/O LATE ARJUN SINGH AGED ABOUT68YEARS, NO.543, 1ST A CROSS, 31ST MAIN, BANAGERI NAGARA, BANASHANKARI2D STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI KESAVAREDDY M., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)) AND1 STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.

3. THE DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION2CORPORATION LIMITED, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING); SMT.PADMA S.UTTUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS VIDE ANNEXURE-K DATED3010.2018 ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner in this writ petition has called in question the endorsement dated 30.10.2018 – Annexure ‘K’, issued by the second respondent – Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’ for short) by which, the claim of the petitioner for addition of his service rendered in the defence forces as qualifying service for the purposes of pension is turned down. 3

2. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of this subject writ petition are that, the petitioner was recruited to regular service of the Indian Air Force with effect from 31.01.1972 and was relieved / discharged from the services of the Indian Air Force on 08.05.1987. Thereafter, the petitioner for a brief period joined the services of the Indian Institute of Horticultural Research and later, applied on an advertisement notified by the Corporation inviting applications for the post of Assistant Engineer in various technical branches. The petitioner applied under the quota reserved for Ex-Military Personnel. In the selection process, the petitioner got selected but the respondent – Corporation did not issue an appointment order despite his selection, which drove him to this Court in W.P.No.664/1991 seeking a mandamus to the Corporation, to appoint the petitioner to the post that he had applied for in terms of his selection. This Court by its order dated 21.07.1997 4 directed the respondent – Corporation to consider the claim of the petitioner.

3. The respondent – Corporation pursuant to the order passed by this Court appointed the petitioner on 06.11.1997 as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and the petitioner immediately joined duty and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2008. When the pension that was settled in favour of the petitioner by the respondent – Corporation, it did not take into account the services rendered by the petitioner in the Indian Air Force, due to which the pension that the petitioner received was abysmally low. Petitioner represented to the respondent – Corporation on 26.05.2008 stating that the service rendered by him between 31.01.1971 and 09.05.1987 has to be taken into consideration for the purposes of calculation of pension. The petitioner submitted two more representations in this regard. 5

4. The respondent – Corporation did not act upon the representations of the petitioner and the pension was continued to be paid on the lower side without taking into consideration the services rendered by the petitioner in the Indian Air Force. On 30.10.2018, the representations given by the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that he was earning pension for his services rendered in the military and would not be entitled to a double benefit. Challenging this order, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject writ petition.

5. Heard Sri Kesava Reddy M., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R. Srinivasa gowda, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Smt. Padma S.Uttur, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 6

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the service rendered by the petitioner in the Indian Air Force as a regular service ought to be taken into consideration as qualifying service for the purpose of calculating pension in terms of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees’ Service Regulations, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Regulations’ for short), more particularly in terms of Regulations 183 and 184, which specifically deal with military service. Though the petitioner gave his representations way back in the year 2008, for the first time the representation came to be rejected in the year 2018. Hence, he has approached this Court in the year 2018.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent Nos.2 and 3 – Corporation, would vehemently contend that the petitioner cannot be allowed to take two benefits as qualifying service since he is drawing pension for the services rendered by him 7 in the Indian Air Force and the said Regulations prohibit the grant of dual pension for the same qualifying service.

8. She would further contend that the writ petition has to be dismissed on account of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner, who retired on attaining the age of superannuation long ago i.e., on 31.05.2008 and has approached this Court only in the year 2018 i.e., ten years after his retirement. She would also rely on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS VS. HARBHAJAN SINGH AND ANOTHER reported in (2007) 12 SCC549 B.L.ARORA VS. CHAIRMA AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, SYNDICATE BANK reported in (2008) 5 SCC645and NARESH KUMAR VS. DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 7 SCC525 8 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record, and on analysis thereof the following questions arise for my consideration: a. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pension inclusive of qualifying service rendered in the armed forces?. b. Whether the claim of the petitioner is to be turned down on account of delay and laches?. RE.POINT NO.1: Whether the petitioner is entitled to pension inclusive of qualifying service rendered in the armed forces?.

10. The petitioner was recruited in the regular service with effect from 31.01.1972 and was discharged from Indian Air Force on 08.05.1987, after having rendered service of 15 yeas and 4 months. The 9 certificate of service in the Indian Air Force is divided in the following manner: “1. This certificate is divided into three parts as follows: PART I – Civil and Service Particulars PART II – Certificate of Discharge from the regular Air Force Service. PART III – Certificate of Discharge from the regular Air Force Reserve.

2. PART I & II – Are to be completed in respect of all airmen to whom this certificate is issued.

3. PART III – is to be left blank for completion at the expiry of his Reserve Service.

4. Four blank pages are provided at the end of the booklet. These may be used for pasting the trade certificate and other certificates pertaining to the knowledge gained in the specialist course etc to be issued by O.C. Unit to the airman.” (emphasis supplied) 10 The petitioner possesses a certificate covered under Part II – Certificate of Discharge from regular Air Force Service in the rank of CPL Education.

11. After his exit from the Indian Air Force for a brief period, he was working in the Indian Institute of Horticulture Research at which point of time, the respondent – Corporation issued a notification calling for applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineers, electrical, Mechanical and Electronics. The petitioner finding himself eligible under the Ex-Military quota applied to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). Despite his qualification, no appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner, which drove him to this Court in this W.P.No.664/1991 and this Court by its order dated 21.07.1997 held that once the petitioner is selected to the post, issuance of appointment order was to be done immediately. In terms of the order passed by this Court 11 in the aforesaid writ petition, the respondent – Corporation appointed the petitioner on 06.11.1997 under the quota reserved for military service. On completion of close to 11 years of service, the petitioner retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation i.e., on 31.05.2008.

12. The respondents – Corporation while determining the pension of the petitioner restricted the qualifying service rendered by him in the Corporation and determined the pension payable at less than 11 years. Petitioner represented before the respondent – Corporation for addition to qualifying services in terms of the said Regulations of the respondent – Corporation, which came to be rejected in the year, 2018.

13. Since the issue revolves around the qualifying service of the petitioner for the purposes of pension, with inclusion or exclusion of military service, 12 the relevant provisions of the said Regulations are required to be noticed.

14. The conditions of the services of the employees of the respondent – Corporation are governed by the said Regulations. Clause (b) of Note (3) of Regulation 183 and Regulation 184 of the said Regulations, deal with conditions of qualifying service of employees, who have rendered military service. The aforesaid relevant Regulations are extracted hereunder for the purpose of ready reference: “183. Employee’s who, prior to their appointment in Board service, have rendered satisfactory paid whole time, enlisted or commissioned war or military service in the armed forces of India which did not earn a service pension under the military, naval or airforce rules, may be allowed to count completed years of such war and / or military service, including all kinds of leave on full rates of pay and sick leave taken during 13 such service, for the purpose of pension under these Regulations subject to a maximum of five years. Provided that any bonus or gratuity received fro military service on discharge from such service is refunded to the Board in not more than 36 monthly instalments after entering Board service. In respect of war service neither payment of pension contribution by the defence department nor refund of bonus or gratuity received by the employees is necessary. Note:- (1) In the case of services/posts in which a minimum age is fixed for recruitment, no war/military service rendered below that age should be allowed to count for pension. Where no minimum age is fixed, war / military service rendered before attaining the age of eighteen shall be ignored. (2) The maximum limit of 5 years shall not apply to war / military service followed by Board service without break, which counts in full. 14 (3) The following types of services shall be treated as ‘War Service’ for purposes of Regulation. (a) Service of any kind in unit or formation for service overseas or in any operational areas. (b) Service in India under Military munitions or stores authorities with a liability to serve overseas or in any operational areas. (c) All other service involving subjection to Naval, Military or Air Force Law. (d) A period of training with a military unit or a formation involving liability to serve overseas or in any operational areas. (e) Service in any Civil defence organization specified in this behalf by the Central or the State Government. (f) (i) Any service connected with the prosecution of the war which 15 a person is required to undertake by a competent authority under provisions of any law for the time being in force; and (ii) such other service as may hereafter be declared as War Service. Only whole time service of any of the kinds specified above will be recognized as War Service.

184. War and military service in the Armed Forces of India rendered by the employees after their entry into Board Service, shall co7unt for pension under these Regulations in full subject to the proviso of Regulation 183.” It is the interpretation of the aforesaid Regulations that are required to be made in the case on hand and are therefore individually re–extracted.

15. Regulation 183 of the said Regulations, reads thus:

16. “183. Employee’s who, prior to their appointment in Board service, have rendered satisfactory paid whole time, enlisted or commissioned war or military service in the armed forces of India which did not earn a service pension under the military, naval or airforce rules, may be allowed to count completed years of such war and / or military service, including all kinds of leave on full rates of pay and sick leave taken during such service, for the purpose of pension under these Regulations subject to a maximum of five years. The afore-extracted Regulation mandate that an employee who, prior to the appointment in the Board has rendered satisfactory paid whole time, enlisted or commissioned war or military services in the armed forces of India which did not earn a service pension under the military, naval or airforce rules, may be allowed to count completed years of such war and / or military service, including all kinds of leave on full rates of pay and sick leave taken during such service, for the 17 purpose of pension under the aforesaid Regulations, subject to the maximum of five years.

16. Thus, the addition to the qualifying service where the military service is rendered by an employee of the Board is capped at 5 years, the Proviso to Regulation 183 is further hedged with two conditions and it is as follows: “Provided that any bonus or gratuity received fro military service on discharge from such service is refunded to the Board in not more than 36 monthly instalments after entering Board service. In respect of war service neither payment of pension contribution by the defence department nor refund of bonus or gratuity received by the employees is necessary.” In terms of the first part of the proviso, the service would be available to be taken into consideration only if the bonus or gratuity received for military service on discharge from such service is refunded to the Board and 18 the second part of the proviso further clarifies it, that in respect of war service neither payment of pension contribution by the defence department nor refund of bonus or gratuity received by the employees is necessary.

17. Thus, the proviso envisages two circumstances, the earlier part which deals with military service stipulates a condition that if the employee of the Board is to be given the benefit of counting of service rendered by him in the military, the gratuity and the bonus received should be refunded to the Corporation. The later part takes away the refund, if the employee has rendered war service.

18. War service is defined under Note (3) of Regulation 183 of the said Regulations, which reads as follows:

19. “(3) The following types of services shall be treated as ‘War Service’ for purposes of Regulation. (g) Service of any kind in unit or formation for service overseas or in any operational areas. (h) Service in India under Military munitions or stores authorities with a liability to serve overseas or in any operational areas. (i) All other service involving subjection to Naval, Military or Air Force Law. (j) A period of training with a military unit or a formation involving liability to serve overseas or in any operational areas. (k) Service in any Civil defence organization specified in this behalf by the Central or the State Government. (l) (i) Any service connected with the prosecution of the war which 20 a person is required to undertake by a competent authority under provisions of any law for the time being in force; and (ii) such other service as may hereafter be declared as War Service. Only whole time service of any of the kinds specified above will be recognized as War Service. (emphasis supplied) The afore-extracted Note (3) of Regulation 183, would mean all other service involving subjection to Naval, Military or Air Force Law. The petitioner prior to joining the service in the Corporation was subjected to Air Force Law as he was recruited to the regular service of Indian Air Force.

19. Regulation 184 of the said Regulations, reads as follows: “184. War and military service in the Armed Forces of India rendered by the 21 employees after their entry into Board Service, shall count for pension under these Regulations in full subject to the proviso of Regulation 183.” The afore-extracted Regulation deals with war and military service in the Armed Forces of India rendered by employees which shall count for pension, in full, subject to proviso to Regulation 183 of the said Regulations. The proviso as extracted and explained hereinabove clearly holds that an employee who is in war service is not required to refund any amount and service in the Indian Air Force is defined to be a war service.

20. On a cumulative reading and analysis of the afore-extracted Regulations and its interpretation would lead to an unmistakable conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the service he rendered in the Indian Air Force and the same has to be reckoned for the purposes of counting the qualifying service to determine the amount of pension that the petitioner would be entitled to. 22

21. The issue that remains for consideration is, whether the entire service rendered by the petitioner of 15 years 4 months in the Indian Air Force should be taken as addition to qualifying service in the Corporation. Despite the maximum service that being capped at 5 years, a harmonious reading of both Regulations 183 and 184 of the said Regulations would in the first blush give an entitlement to the petitioner to consider his past service in its entirety for the purposes of pension, but Note (2) to Regulation 183 makes it clear that the maximum service stipulated under Regulation 183 will not apply to war/military service followed by Board service without break and only then the said service would be counted in full.

22. The petitioner was discharged from Indian Air Force on 08.05.1987, he did not immediately join the respondent – Corporation but was working in the Indian Institute of Horticultural Research till he was appointed in 23 the respondent – Corporation in the year 1997. Thus, exit from the military service and entry into the Corporation not without a break as there was break in service. Hence, the petitioner even if he is entitled to addition to the qualifying service in the Corporation, the maximum service that can be added as qualifying service for the purpose of determining the calculation of pension would be 5 years. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to addition to the qualifying service to the maximum of 5 years in terms of the Regulation 183 of the said Regulations.

23. Insofar as the judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for respondents – Corporation, in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH AND ANOTHER reported in (2007) 12 SCC549is concerned, what fell for consideration before the Apex Court was, The Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1970, 24 as could be seen from the narration itself. Para 16 of the said judgment reads as follows: “16. Now let us verify the relevant provisions of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1970. Chapter VII deals with re-employment of pensioners. Even in this Chapter, we are concerned with Rules 7.13, 7.14 and 7.15 which read thus: “7.13. A government employee who has obtained a compensation pension, if re- employed, may retain his pension in addition to his pay: Provided that if he is re-employed in a post paid from the government revenue, the pension shall remain wholly or partly in abeyance, if the sum of the pension and the initial pay on re-employment exceeds his substantive pay immediately before retirement, that is, a government employee can draw so much of pension only as will make his initial pay plus pension equal to his substantive pay at the time of his retirement. Once the amount of the pension has been fixed 25 in conformity with the above conditions the government employee shall be entitled to receive the benefit of increments in his new scale or promotion to another scale or post without a further corresponding reduction in pension; nor shall the amount of pension so fixed be varied during leave. In the case, however, of a pensioner re-employed in either a permanent or a temporary post, for bona fide temporary duty lasting for not more than a year, the Government or, in cases where the pension does not exceed Rs 40 a month, the authority which controls the establishment on which the pensioner is to be employed may allow the pension to be drawn in whole or in part even though the sum total pay and pension exceeds his substantive pay at the time of his retirement. 7.14. If the re-employment is in qualifying service, the government employee may either retain his pension (subject to the proviso stated in Rule 7.13) in which case his former service will not count for future pension, or cease to draw any part of his pension and count his previous service. Pension intermediately drawn need not be refunded. 26

7.15. If a government employee does not within three months from the date of his re- employment, exercise the option conceded by Rule 7.14, of ceasing to draw pension and counting his former service, he cannot, thereafter, do so without the permission of the competent authority.” The above provisions make it clear that employee can draw so much pension only if his initial pay plus pension does not exceed his substantive pay at the time of retirement. Further, if previous service is counted, the pension remains in abeyance. It also shows that if option is not exercised in three months, he cannot do so at a later stage without the approval of the competent authority. The period rendered shall count towards the service only if person has not earned pension, any bonus or gratuity paid is refunded to the State Government. Admittedly, the respondent was getting pension of Rs 1057 per month. It is also not in dispute that he received DCRG (gratuity) to the tune of Rs. 23,870.” The Apex Court in the afore-extracted paragraph was interpreting the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1970. 27 The Rules that have fallen for consideration in the case on hand are not in parimatria with the Rule that fell for consideration before the Apex Court. Hence, the judgment relied by the respondents – Corporation is not applicable to the fact situation.

24. Learned counsel has further relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BABURAJ AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER reported in (2016) 14 SCC345 to contend that a re- employed pensioner will not be entitled to count his past service as qualifying service as it would amount to a dual benefit.

25. The Apex Court in the case of BABURAJ (supra) has held as follows: “14. To appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel, it is profitable to notice Rule 8(c) of Part III of the Rules. It is extracted as under:

28. “Ex-servicemen re-employed in civil service shall be allowed to count their military service other than War Service in the Armed Forces of India from 1-4-1946 which is non- pensionable under Military Rules but which terminated before a pension has been earned in respect of it for purpose of civil pension, in cases of retirement from civil service on or after 14-11- 1966; Provided that the bonus or gratuity, if any, received for the period of military service by the person concerned from the Defence Department is refunded to that Department; Provided also that the person concerned is not in receipt of any military pension in respect of his military service. Breaks between military service and civil service shall be condoned in accordance with the Government Decision No.3 above. 29 The pensionary charges in respect of military service other than War Service will be borne by the Government of India on a service share basis in accordance with the normal rules in Appendices III-B, IV of the Kerala Account Code, Vol. I.

16. Part III of the Rules relates to the payment of pension in the respondent State Civil Services. Rule 8 therein specifically deals with military service, and the conditions for reckoning of military service to assess civil pension are contemplated under Rule 8(c). Ex-servicemen who are re-employed in civil service, to enable them to earn civil pension after retirement from State service, they have to comply with the conditions contained therein. Rule 8(c) refers to a situation that ex- servicemen should be re-employed in civil service and he must have retired under military service before he earned a pension. It is also subject to two conditions contained under Proviso (1) and Proviso (2). The first proviso envisages return of bonus or gratuity, 30 if any received for the period of military service rendered by the ex-servicemen. He has to return the said amount to the Defence Department from where he received bonus or gratuity if he opts to have civil pension on his retirement. The second proviso disentitles a civil servant, who is an ex-serviceman from receiving State pension if he is already receiving military pension. The said Rule 8(c) only talks about civil pension and does not refer to any other stage of civil service rendered by an ex-serviceman.” The Apex Court in the said case has again interpreted the Government Orders and Kerala Civil Service Rules, which are again not in parimatria with the afore-extracted Regulations of the respondent – Corporation and hence, is again inapplicable to the facts of the case on hand.

26. In view of the preceding analysis, point No.1 is partly held in favour of the petitioner. 31 RE.POINT NO.2 : Whether the claim of the petitioner is to be turned down on account of delay and laches?.

27. The petitioner retired on 31.05.2008 and has filed the present writ petition only on 05.12.2018, which is more than 10 years, what is to be noticed is that the petitioner gave a representation on 26.05.2008 seeking inclusion of his military service and again gave two representations in the year 2018, reiterating his request as was made in the earlier representation.

28. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no delay that is attributable to the petitioner. It is trite law that payment of pension is a continuing cause of action as the employee is short paid every month and cause of action with such a prayer arises every month. The Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA Vs. TARSEM SINGH reported in (2008) 8 SCC648 has held as follows:

32. “3. The respondent however was not satisfied. According to him the disability pension ought to be paid from the date it fell due on 13-11-1983. He therefore filed a letters patent appeal. The said appeal was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated 6-12-2006. The Division Bench held that the respondent was entitled to disability pension from the date it fell due, and it should not be restricted to a period of three years and two months prior to the filing of the writ petition. By a subsequent modification order dated 23-2-2007, the Division Bench also granted interest on the arrears at the rate of 6% per annum. The said judgment and order of the Division Bench is challenged in this appeal. The only question that therefore arises for our consideration is whether the High Court was justified in directing payment of arrears for a period of 16 years instead of restricting it to three years.

4. The principles underlying continuing wrongs and recurring/successive wrongs have 33 been applied to service law disputes. A “continuing wrong” refers to a single wrongful act which causes a continuing injury. “Recurring/successive wrongs” are those which occur periodically, each wrong giving rise to a distinct and separate cause of action. This Court in Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan [AIR1959SC798 explained the concept of continuing wrong (in the context of Section 23 of the Limitation Act, 1908 corresponding to Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963): (AIR p. 807, para

31) “31. … It is the very essence of a continuing wrong that it is an act which creates a continuing source of injury and renders the doer of the act responsible and liable for the continuance of the said injury. If the wrongful act causes an injury which is complete, there is no continuing wrong even though the damage resulting from the act may continue. If, however, a wrongful act is of such a character that the injury caused by it itself continues, then the act 34 constitutes a continuing wrong. In this connection, it is necessary to draw a distinction between the injury caused by the wrongful act and what may be described as the effect of the said injury.

5. In M.R. Gupta v. Union of India [(1995) 5 SCC628:

1995. SCC (L&S) 1273 : (1995) 31 ATC186 the appellant approached the High Court in 1989 with a grievance in regard to his initial pay fixation with effect from 1-8-1978. The claim was rejected as it was raised after 11 years. This Court applied the principles of continuing wrong and recurring wrongs and reversed the decision. This Court held: (SCC pp. 629-30, para

5) “5. … 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 a salary which was not computed in accordance with 35 the rules. So long as the appellant is in service, a fresh cause of action arises every month when he is paid his monthly salary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to rules. It is no doubt true that if the appellant's claim is found correct on merits, he would be entitled to be paid according to the properly fixed pay scale in the future and the question of limitation would arise for recovery of the arrears for the past period. In other words, the appellant's claim, if any, for recovery of arrears calculated on the basis of difference in the pay which has become time-barred would not be recoverable, but he would be entitled to proper fixation of his pay in accordance with rules and to cessation of a continuing wrong if on merits his claim is justified. Similarly, any other consequential relief claimed by him, such as, promotion, etc., would also be subject to the defence of laches, etc. to disentitle him 36 to those reliefs. The pay fixation can be made only on the basis of the situation existing on 1-8-1978 without taking into account any other consequential relief which may be barred by his laches and the bar of limitation. It is to this limited extent of proper pay fixation, the application cannot be treated as time-barred….

7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to 37 the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.

8. In this case, the delay of sixteen years would affect the consequential claim for 38 arrears. The High Court was not justified in directing payment of arrears relating to sixteen years, and that too with interest. It ought to have restricted the relief relating to arrears to only three years before the date of writ petition, or from the date of demand to date of writ petition, whichever was lesser. It ought not to have granted interest on arrears in such circumstances. In terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforestated judgment, a pensioner cannot be shown a closed door of this Court on the ground that he has bought his cause belatedly but cannot be granted arrears for the entire period from the date of retirement to the date of filing the petition. In terms of the Judgment of the Apex Court arrears are restricted to 3 years before filing the writ petition.

29. In view of the above observations, point No.2 is partly held in favour of the petitioner. 39

30. For the praefatus reasons, the following:

ORDER

a. The writ petition is allowed. b. The impugned endorsement dated 30.10.2018 – Annexure ‘K’, issued by the second respondent – Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited is hereby quashed. c. The Corporation is directed to add 5 years to the qualifying service to the service rendered by the petitioner in the Corporation and re-determine his pension accordingly. d. The petitioner shall be entitled to arrears of pension as a consequence of the aforesaid determination only for a period of 3 years prior to filing of writ petition. e. This exercise shall be complied with by the Corporation within 12 weeks from the date of *Vide Chamber Order dated 09.11.2020, Page No.39 of the order is replaced by page Nos.39 and 40. 40 receipt of a copy of the order, failing which, the petitioner would be entitled to interest at 9% p.a. for the aforesaid 3 years from the date it falls due till the date of payment. Sd/- JUDGE nvj/ CT:MJ