The court determined that erroneous pay fixation claims are continuous wrongs, allowing for revision regardless of delayed action on behalf of the employee.

JUDGMENT

S.G. Chattopadhyay, J. - This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.06.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(C) No.923 of 2018 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition which was filed by the petitioner (appellant herein) challenging her erroneous pay fixation in the post of Staff Nurse under the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tripura.

2. The factual context of the case is as under:

Appellant, Smti. Bina Debbarma who has retired from service on 30.06.2009 joined the service as an Assistant Nurse in the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tripura on 23.04.1973 pursuant to her selection and appointment in the post. After rendering continuous service for about 10(ten) years in the post of Assistant Nurse, she was promoted to the post of Staff Nurse on 10.08.1983. Her pay was fixed in the promotional post in usual course. When the Tripura State Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 (for short ROP Rules, 1988) came into operation refixation of her pay in the revised scale as per ROP Rules, 1988 in the post of Staff Nurse was done. Accordingly, her pay as on 10.08.1983 in the promotional post of Staff Nurse was revised to Rs.740/- as per ROP Rules, 1988 but the appellant has claimed that it should have been Rs.810/- instead of Rs.740/- as per said ROP Rules, 1988. According to the appellant, her pay revision in the promotional post was grossly erroneous and as a result of such erroneous pay fixation, she was given a lesser amount of pay althrough and even after her retirement she is being paid pension less than her entitlement. After her retirement, the appellant realised that her pay fixation was erroneously done by the department because she was getting lesser amount of pension than her colleague. Immediately she filed representation to the department in the year 2017 alleging erroneous pay fixation which was turned down by the State respondents. She then approached this Court seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The respondents filed counter affidavits before the learned Single Judge. Respondents No.1 and 2 jointly filed counter affidavit on 09.01.2019 and respondent No.3 filed a separate counter affidavit on 20.12.2018. The respondents claimed that a thorough examination of her service book and other service records revealed that her pay fixation in the promotional post of Staff Nurse was correctly done by the department and the Accountant General after verification of the entire service record finally settled her retirement benefits including her pension. In their affidavit respondents have given the details as to how the pay fixation of the appellant was done.

4. In the counter affidavit submitted before the learned Single Judge, the Accountant General who was arrayed as respondent No. 3 in the writ petition asserted as under:

'3. That, in response to the averments made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, I on behalf of the answering Respondent No.3 state that the office of the Respondent No.3 is discharging the duties of Authorizing Authority of pensionery benefits while the concerned DDOs are the pension Sanctioning Authorities. In discharging the duty of Authorizing Authority, the office of the Respondent No.3 is always duty bound to scrupulously follow the rules and regulations of CCS (pension) Rules alongwith the direction/orders issued by the Finance Department, Government of Tripura from time to time in the form of circular, office Memorandum etc. That, the pensionery benefits in respect of the writ petitioner was authorized on the basis of regulation of pay made by the concerned department