Delay Alone Cannot Bar Challenge To Wrong Pay Fixation If It Discloses Continuing Wrong: Gauhati High Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Gauhati, Single Bench of Justice Kardak Ete considered a service writ petition by an Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife (ANM) against her employer, challenging an allegedly incorrect initial pay fixation that left her drawing a lower scale than similarly placed ANMs. The Court noted that where the grievance reflects a continuing or recurring wrong, it cannot be declined solely due to delay, observing that limitation does not bar such a claim in that context. The Court directed the employer to reconsider and refix the petitioner’s pay and allowances on parity with comparable ANMs, limited arrears to three years from the date of demand and ordered compliance within 60 days.
The petitioner was appointed on 29.04.1992 as an Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife (ANM) in the erstwhile Assam State Electricity Board in the scale of Rs. 1025-35-1375-EB-40-1655/- plus allowances. She later served under the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL). She alleged that similarly situated ANMs had been granted a higher pay scale of Rs. 1085-40-1245-1425-EB-50-1925/- per month and that her pay had been fixed at a lower scale due to an incorrect initial fixation.
The petitioner submitted representations dated 21.02.2020 and 27.07.2021 seeking parity. By communication dated 01.02.2022, the Chief General Manager (HRA), APDCL rejected her claim on the ground of delay, noting that the grievance was raised nearly 30 years after appointment.
The petitioner relied on the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2017, contending that Midwife/ANM is treated as one post with the same Pay Band and Grade Pay. She also relied on decisions of the Supreme Court concerning continuing cause of action. The respondents contended that the claim was barred by delay and laches and that the matter had not been considered on merits
The Court observed, “Perusal of the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2017, reflects that the Midwife/ANM has the same Pay Band and Grade Pay as PB-2 5200-20200 2400 PB-2 14000- 49000 6200. Upon careful consideration, it is seen that the Midwife/ANM are one and same post having same pay scale. Therefore, it cannot be said that Midwife/ANM are two different posts having the different Pay Scale / Grade Pay.”
Regarding the manner in which the grievance was rejected, the Court recorded, “the respondent authorities appears to have considered and examined the matter, not on merits, however, appears to have rejected the grievance of the petitioner only on the ground of delay and laches as the petitioner has raised her grievance as regards the discrepancy in fixation of pay scale after the lapse of almost 30 years from the date of her appointment.”
The Court further stated, “Having considered that the respondent authorities have not considered the grievance of the petitioner on merits, I am of the considered view that the same is required to be considered on merit ignoring the said delay in view of the fact that there appears to be clear discrepancy in fixation of the pay scale, perhaps, may be inadvertently at the time of initial appointment of the petitioner as the same is supported by the records including the RoP, 2017.”
While referring to precedent on continuing cause of action, the Court noted, “there would not be any quarrel to the aforesaid observation and proposition, although it has been rendered on its contextual facts of those cases, as in respect of any continuing / recurring cause of action, no application can be barred on the ground of limitation.”
On the merits of the grievance, the Court recorded, “records and the provisions of the law clearly fortified the grievance of the petitioner as regards the discrepancy in fixation of pay scale as admittedly, she being provided with lesser pay than the other similarly situated Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife’ (ANM) under the same authorities, i.e., APDCL. The petitioner in my view would be entitled to be provided with the similar pay and allowances as granted to the other similarly Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife’ (ANM) under the respondent authorities.”
The Court directed, “it would be appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to re-consider and re-fix the pay and allowances of the petitioner as that of the other similarly situated Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife’ (ANM) of the APDCL. It is ordered accordingly.”
“The claim for arrears of the petitioner be restricted to 3 years from the date of demand, i.e., 21.02.2020.” The “consequential action directed herein shall be taken as expeditiously but not later than 60 days. Writ petition stands allowed and disposed accordingly.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. A.K. Baruah, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. N. Deka, Standing Counsel, APDCL
Case Title: Dalimi Kalita vs The Assam Power Distribution Company Limited and 2 Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: GAU-AS:1541
Case Number: WP(C)/3988/2022
Bench: Justice Kardak Ete
