JUDGEMENT

Sanjeev Kumar, J

1. This petition by the petitioner-Ram Lal filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order and judgment dated 20-03-

2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu, [‘the Tribunal’] in OA No. 61/121/2022 titled Ram Lal v. Union of India.

2. The Tribunal has rejected the OA filed by the petitioner primarily on the ground of delay and latches. The Tribunal has taken note of the fact that, as per own showing of the petitioner, he was appointed as Saddler in the year 1992 but was erroneously placed in the pay scale of Mazdoor i.e. Rs. 750-940. The petitioner was thereafter given due upgradations under MACP from time to time. The petitioner accepted the position and woke up from the slumber only in the year 2022 when he approached the Tribunal by way of OA No. 61/121/2022. The Tribunal thus concluded that there was unexplained delay of about 22 years in approaching the Court and, therefore, the OA was highly belated and hit by delay and latches.

3. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal is assailed by the petitioner on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that in the case before the Tribunal there was continuing cause of action, in that, so long as the petitioner is in service, fresh cause of action would arise every month when the petitioner is paid his salary on the basis of wrong pay scale given to him contrary to the Rules. In such situation, contends Mr. Gagan Basotra, learned Senior counsel, the question of limitation would be relevant only for recovery of arrears for the past and the petitioner cannot even be denied that part of the arrears accrued to him as have not become time barred. To buttress his contention, Mr. Basotra relies upon a recent judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak v.

Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, 2022 (16) SCR 1014

4. Per contra, Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI, would submit that the petitioner having remained silent for almost 20 years and having accepted the pay scale granted to him including the benefit of MACP, shall be deemed to have acquiesced and, therefore, cannot be permitted to agitate the issue at such a belated stage. He would submit that, if the limitation is ignored on the asking of a litigant, there would be unending uncertainty as to the rights and obligations of the parties.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, it is not in dispute that in the year 1992 the petitioner was appointed as Civil Saddler, which post, at the relevant point of time, carried the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500. For some reasons and probably on account of a mistake of fact, the petitioner was instead placed in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940, the pay scale applicable to the post of Mazdoor. On the basis of his pay scale of Rs. 750-940, the petitioner was granted first financial up- gradation under MACP scheme in the pay Band-I (Rs. 5200-20200 plus Grade Pay of Rs. 1900) with effect from September, 2008 and was similarly granted second financial up gradation in the scale of Rs. 5200-20200 plus Grade Pay of Rs. 2000 with effect from 2012 on completion of 20 years regular service.

6. Be that as it may, the dispute raised by the petitioner is not that he has not been given the financial up-gradations in time or that his pay scale has not been appropriately revised in terms of 6^th and 7^th Pay Commission, but his grievance is that he was initially given the lesser pay scale of Rs. 750- 940, a grade attached to the post of Mazdoor, whereas he was entitled to be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500, the pay scale attached to the post of Civil Saddler. The grievance of the petitioner, in a nut shell, is that because of this error of fact committed by the respondents, the petitioner’s pay scale came to be revised and up-graded accordingly. Therefore, the short grievance projected by the petitioner is that he is entitled to be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 wi