A Decade of Dragging Feet: High Court Penalizes State for Delay in Salary Arrears

In a scathing rebuke to administrative lethargy, the Rajasthan High Court has dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan, ordering the immediate payment of UGC-prescribed pay scale arrears to a retired Physical Training Instructor (PTI). The verdict marks the conclusion of a legal battle that has spanned over two decades, characterizing the State’s attempt to re-litigate settled issues as an unnecessary abuse of judicial process.

The Long Road to Recognition

The case involves Kamal Singh Choudhary, who first entered service as a PTI on a temporary basis in 1985, with his services formally regularized in 1992. For years, the State maintained that his service period prior to 1992 did not qualify for senior or selection scale benefits.

Choudhary first successfully challenged this stance in 2004. In an order dated October 18, 2013, the High Court directed the State to grant him the UGC-prescribed pay scale effective from his initial appointment in 1985. Despite the State failing in an initial intra-court appeal in 2016, the government failed to comply with the ruling. Following further inaction, Choudhary was forced to approach the court again in 2016, leading to a fresh order confirming his rights, which the State subsequently challenged again—culminating in this month's decision.

Arguments of the State vs. Reality

The State’s appeal, heard by the bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu , argued that the 2013 order had failed to consider specific departmental circulars and alleged "breaks in service."

However, the Court made short shrift of these contentions. The bench emphasized that the legality of the 2013 order had already been tested and confirmed by a higher court, effectively reaching the point of res judicata . The judiciary expressed frustration that the State was attempting to use an appeal against a subsequent order to challenge an original judgment that had already attained finality inter-se the parties.

Key Observations from the Bench

The Court’s order was unequivocal in its rejection of the State’s procedural obstruction:

> "It is an admitted case that this order has attained finality inter se the parties."

Regarding the persistent attempts to revisit the issue, the Bench noted:

> "The issue involved in the writ petition and now in the intra court appeal was decided by this court in the case of the respondent in October, 2013. The issue is being raked up again to challenge the order which had attained finality."

Final Decision and Practical Implications

The High Court dismissed the appeal and imposed a cost of ₹10,000 on the appellants, payable to the respondent. This ruling serves as a stern reminder to government departments that judicial orders cannot be treated as optional suggestions. By repeatedly filing appeals against settled law after failing to implement earlier, final judgments, state departments not only clog the judicial system but also inflict significant financial and mental exhaustion upon pensioners who have dedicated their working lives to the public sector.

This judgment establishes a clear precedent that once an intra-court appeal is finalized and the government fails to contest it further (or loses), the issue cannot be resurrected to avoid compliance.