Pay fixation dispute cannot be revived post-retirement as pension claim: HC

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, while dismissing the petition filed by Kundan Lal, observed that a wrong fixation of pay constitutes a continuing cause of action only as long as an employee remains in service

The Punjab and Haryana high court has dismissed the plea of a retired lab attendant of a Haryana government-aided college seeking a higher pay scale and consequential revision of pension, holding that a long-pending service dispute cannot be revived years after retirement by presenting it as a pension claim.

Holding that the petitioner’s real grievance concerned his pay during service and that the pension claim was merely a consequence, the court dismissed the petition on September 28. (HT Photo for representation)

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, while dismissing the petition filed by Kundan Lal, observed that a wrong fixation of pay constitutes a continuing cause of action only as long as an employee remains in service. Once an employee retires, the alleged wrong in pay fixation crystallises into a completed act, and a claim raised after substantial delay cannot ordinarily be revived merely because it affects the pension.

The petitioner had retired on May 31, 2013, after serving as a lab attendant (under-matric). He claimed that he should have been placed in the pay scale of ₹950-1,500, instead of ₹775-1,025, at par with matriculate lab attendants. He relied on a 2008 judgment of the HC in Lachhman Singh and others v. State of Haryana, under which under-matric lab attendants were granted parity with matriculate lab attendants.

The state government had subsequently issued an order in 2009 extending the revised scale with effect from January 1, 1986. However, the petitioner did not successfully pursue his claim during his service. He approached the HC again in 2026, more than a decade after retirement, seeking refixation of his pension on the basis of the higher pay scale.

The court noted that the petitioner had submitted representations after retirement and had also filed earlier petitions, but held that repeated representations do not keep a stale claim alive or create a fresh cause of action.

The court also laid down broad principles governing delayed service claims. It said pay-fixation disputes can generally be raised during service, with arrears ordinarily restricted to three years. However, where the employee has already retired, a grievance regarding pay fixation cannot be converted into a continuing pension dispute.

At the same time, the court clarified that genuine pensionary entitlements can constitute continuing causes of action and, depending on the facts, relief may be granted despite delay. In exceptional cases such as family pension or certain disability-pension claims, arrears may flow from the date the entitlement accrued.

Holding that the petitioner’s real grievance concerned his pay during service and that the pension claim was merely a consequence, the court dismissed the petition on September 28.