When an employer fails to correctly implement pay scale revisions or financial upgradation benefits, the resulting anomaly entitles employees to full arrears. An employer cannot rely on the lapse of time resulting from its own non-compliance to curtail the financial benefits due to an employee.

JUDGMENT :

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

1. The present writ petition arises out of order dated 31.01.2025, “Impugned order”, hereinafter passed in Original Application, “OA”, hereinafter No. 3834/2017, whereby the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, “Tribunal”, hereinafter had allowed the aforesaid O.A. and directed the Respondent to re-fix the Grade Pay of the Petitioners on notional basis and pension order but restricted the arrears to only for three years preceding the date of filing of the said O.A. in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. Tarsem Singh , (2008) 8 SCC 648.

2. The Petitioners have assailed the Impugned Order only to the extent of the direction passed by the learned Tribunal of restricting the benefit to only three years preceding the filing of the underlying O.A.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the O.A. No. 3834/2017 are set out below.

4. The Petitioners were initially appointed as Vaccinators, the post which was subsequently re-designated as Public Health Inspectors,“PHIs”, hereinafter in the office of the Respondent.

5. As per the office order dated 31.05.2005 issued by the Respondent, the pay scales of the supervisory staff stood revised in terms of the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission, “CPC”, hereinafter with effect from 01.01.1996. In pursuance thereof, the posts of Vaccination Inspector (now PHIs) and Vaccinator (now PHIs) were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000.

6. Before filing the underlying O.A., the Petitioners had earlier approached the learned Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 3783/2012 seeking implementation of the aforesaid revised pay scale with effect from 01.01.1996 and challenged the action of the Respondent in refixing their pay and effecting recovery from their salaries.

7. The earlier O.A. came to be allowed vide the order dated 17.02.2015, directing the Respondent to restore the pay scale of the Petitioners to the Rs. 5000-8000, refund the amounts already recovered from their salaries and grant all consequential benefits arising therefrom.

8. However, due to non-compliance of the directions contained in order dated 17.02.2015 passed in the earlier O.A. No. 3783/2012, the Petitioners were constrained to initiate contempt proceedings before the learned Tribunal.

9. During the pendency of the said contempt, the Respondent issued office order dated 03.05.2016, whereby, the Grade Pay of the Petitioners was revised from Rs. 4200/- to Rs. 4600/- with effect from 01.01.2006/08.09.2006 and thereafter to Rs. 4800/- with effect from 01.09.2008/08.09.2012 under the ACP/MACP Scheme. In view of the said compliance, the contempt petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 18.1.2017.

10. However, the matter did not rest there for the Petitioners. Their grievance arose again when they came to know, that although their Grade Pay had been fixed at Rs. 4800/- and their pensionary and terminal benefits had been worked out on that basis, similarly situated employees and even juniors to them had been granted Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/-. It is this alleged anomaly, which gave rise to the present round of litigation.

11. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the Petitioners submitted representations dated 08.08.2017 and 10.08.2017 seeking re-fixation of their Grade Pay and pensionary benefits.

12. Petitioners’ specific grievance was that they had been granted Grade Pay of Rs. 4600