TMI Blog1995 (8) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Demonstrator in the Government Polytechnic in 1967. Thereafter, he joined service in the railways in 1978. The appellant claimed that the fixation of his pay on his joining service in the railways was incorrect and that he was entitled to fixation of his pay after adding one increment to the pay which he would have drawn on 1.8.1978 in accordance with Rule No. 2018 (N.R.S.N. 6447) equivalent to Fundamental Rule 22-c. The representation of the appellant to this effect was rejected before coming into force of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The appellant then filed an application on 4.9.1989 before the Tribunal praying inter alia for proper fixation of his initial pay with effect from 1.8.1978 and certain consequential benefits. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n arises every month when he is paid his monthly salary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to rules. It is no doubt true that if the appellant s claim is found correct on merits, he would be entitled to be paid according to the properly fixed pay scale in the future and the question of limitation would arise for recovery of the arrears for the past period. In other words, the appellant s claim, if any, for recovery of arrears calculated on the basis of difference in the pay which has become time barred would not be recoverable, but he would be entitled to proper fixation of his pay in accordance with rules and to cessation of a continuing wrong if on merits his claim is justified. Similarly, any other consequential relief cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reliance on the decision of this Court in S.S. Rathore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1989] Supp. 1 SCR 43. That decision has no application in the present case. That was a case of termination of service and, therefore, a case of one time action, unlike the claim for payment of correct salary according to the rules throughout the service giving rise to a fresh cause of action each time the salary was incorrectly computed and paid. No further consideration of that decision is required to indicate its inapplicability in the present case. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal has to be allowed. We make it clear that the merits of the appellant s claim have to be examined and the only point concluded by this decision is the one decided abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
