Punjab And Haryana High Court Rejects Retired Employee’s Pay Fixation Claim Filed After A Decade

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rejected a retired government-aided college employee’s plea for a higher pension, ruling that a dispute over salary fixation during service cannot be revived years after retirement by presenting it as a pension-related issue.

The petitioner had retired in May 2013 but approached the court more than a decade later, seeking a higher pay scale with effect from January 1986 and a corresponding revision of his pension. The court found that his claim was barred by the long delay, which had not been adequately explained.

When Delayed Service Claims Can Be Rejected

The petitioner joined a government-aided college in Haryana as a Peon in 1971 and was later promoted to Lab Attendant. He retired on May 31, 2013, and his pension order was issued in December that year.

He sought the pay scale of Rs 950-1500, applicable to Matriculate Lab Attendants, instead of the Rs 775-1025 scale granted to him. He argued that both categories performed similar duties and relied on an earlier court ruling that had granted pay parity to Under-Matric Lab Attendants at a government college in Hisar.

The employee had issued a legal notice in 2014 and submitted a representation in 2017. He also submitted two earlier petitions, which he later withdrew to re-approach the court.

The State rejected the claim, saying that the employee was unable to revive an old salary dispute after retirement through the pension arrangement.

Three Categories For Service Disputes

The court outlined three categories to explain how delays affect service-related claims.

The first covers disputes that courts would ordinarily reject if the delay is not properly explained. These include challenges to termination, dismissal, non-selection and certain promotion or seniority decisions. Claims by retired employees seeking higher pensions because of disputed salary fixation during their service also fall into this category.

The second category covers continuing wrongs, where courts may consider a claim despite a delay but usually limit arrears to three years before the petition. Examples include incorrect pay fixation while an employee is still working, or a pension calculated incorrectly or denied altogether.

The third category includes certain family pension claims, particularly those involving illiterate widows, and disability pension claims by armed forces personnel. In these cases, arrears may be payable from the date the entitlement arose.

Why The Employee’s Claim Failed

Applying these principles, the court found that the employee’s pension request depended on whether his salary should have been fixed at a larger scale from January 1986. His main dispute was therefore about pay fixation during service, rather than an independent error in calculating his pension.

The court ruled that retirement marked the point at which this particular grievance became a completed claim. Repeated representations could not create a fresh right to pursue it years later.

As the employee had not adequately explained the delay, the court dismissed his petition.