2025 Supreme(SC) 2061

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. Maheshwari, Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.
Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand And Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14046 of 2024
Decided On : 16-12-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Doctrine of delay and laches do not apply to a continuing cause of action.
(2) Pay Scale – Parity – Financial implications and administrative convenience cannot override constitutional guarantees against arbitrary discrimination – State, being Model Employer, cannot plead its own inefficiency or negligence to deny legitimate rights to its employees.

Headnote:

Advocates appeared :

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhanshu S. Pandey, Adv. Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR Mr. Arjun D. Singh, Adv. Mr. Roshan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Maitreya Mahaley, Adv. Mr. Yimyanger Longkumer, Adv. Mr. Kamei Bestman Kabui, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Shantanu Sagar, AOR Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv.

(A) Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 – Section 34 – Transfer of proceedings from High Court at Patna to High Court of Jharkhand – Legislative intent behind this provision was to ensure continuity of judicial authority and prevent any vacuum arising from re-organisation of State – Deeming provision under Section 34(4) operates to treat those judgments or orders as those of High Court of Jharkhand, entitled to same respect, obedience, and implementation as any order passed by High Court of Jharkhand. (Paras 20, 21, 22 and 33)

(B) Service Law – Pay Scale – Parity – In matters involving pay scale parity based on removal of anomalies, cause of action continues from month to month as long as anomaly persists – Every month when employee receives lesser pay than his similarly situated counterparts constitutes a fresh cause of action – In present case, Appellant filed writ petition before High Court praying for issuance of appropriate writ to Respondent-Employer to grant him pay scale as genuine in place of anomaly in pay scale in parity with other similarly situated persons – Claim having continuous cause of action, plea of limitation or laches cannot be sustained in this case – Appellant was not sleeping over his rights but was pursuing remedies available to him through appropriate representations before approaching Court – When other similarly situated employees have already been granted benefit through judicial pronouncement, it would be grossly unjust to deny same relief to Appellant – Similarly situated persons should be extended benefit of judicial declarations without approaching court individually finds full application in present case – To hold otherwise would be to encourage multiplicity of litigation and deny beneficial effect of judicial pronouncements to those who are entitled to it – Principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of Constitution of India, 1950 brooks no discrimination between persons who are similarly situated – Impugned Judgment of Division Bench set aside and Judgment of Single Judge restored. (Paras 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 33)

(C) Constitution of India – Article 14 – Equality before law – Plea of delay and laches cannot be sustained in a case involving continuing violation of rights that too in light of nature of directions issued in rem – Appellant's consistent pursuit of his claim through representations and timely filing of writ petition after their rejection shows that he was not sleeping over his rights – Financial implications and administrative convenience cannot override constitutional guarantees against arbitrary discrimination – State, being Model Employer, cannot plead its own inefficiency or negligence to deny legitimate rights to its employees – Recommendations of various committees acknowledging anomaly only reinforces constitutional obligation to remove discrimination. (Para 32)

Facts of the case:

The dispute between the parties herein relates to grant of higher pay scale to the Employee after removal of anomalies in pay scale, on parity with other similarly situated persons who have been already granted the said benefit by the Respondent-Employer. The central issue for determination is whether the Appellant, appointed as Industries Extension Officer pursuant to a common competitive examination in the year 1981 and allocated to State of Jharkhand upon state reorganization in year 2001, is entitled to removal of anomalies in his pay scale from the date of his appointment, on parity with other similarly situated employees and, whether Division Bench was justified in reversing Single Judge’s judgment which granted such relief?

Findings of Court:

Directions as contained in the judgment of Single Judge be now complied within three months from the date of this judgment. Appellant is also entitled to the cost of litigation as per rules.

Result : Appeal allowed with costs.