The Gauhati High Court has reaffirmed the principle of equal pay for equal work while holding that delay and laches cannot bar claims arising from continuing wrongs in service matters. The judgment clarifies that recurring violations of pay fixation rights create fresh causes of action each month, entitling employees to seek redressal regardless of when the discrepancy was first discovered. This ruling carries significant implications for service law practitioners handling pay disparity cases.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Dalimi Kalita, was appointed as an Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife (ANM) in the erstwhile Assam State Electricity Board (now Assam Power Distribution Company Limited) on 29.04.1992. She was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1025-35-1375-EB-40-1655, while similarly situated ANMs received a higher pay scale of Rs. 1085-40-1245-1425-EB-50-1925. The discrepancy came to her notice only in 2020, nearly 30 years after her appointment.
Procedural History
The petitioner’s grievance progressed through the following stages:
- 21.02.2020: First representation filed with APDCL seeking pay parity
- 27.07.2021: Second representation submitted
- 01.02.2022: Chief General Manager (HRA), APDCL rejected the claim citing delay and laches
- 2022: Writ petition filed before the Gauhati High Court challenging the rejection
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Re-fixation of her pay scale to match that of similarly situated ANMs
- Payment of arrears for the period of disparity
- Quashing of the impugned communication dated 01.02.2022
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether delay and laches could bar a claim for pay fixation discrepancy when the wrong was continuing in nature, particularly where the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2017 mandated equal pay for the post of ANM/Midwife.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. A.K. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended:
- The Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2017 treated ANM and Midwife as the same post with identical pay scales, making the disparity arbitrary.
- The continuing nature of the wrong - each month’s underpayment constituted a fresh cause of action - rendered the plea of delay unsustainable. Reliance was placed on M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay v. State of Jharkhand.
- Documentary evidence, including the Recruitment Rules (RoP) 2017 and RTI replies, confirmed the petitioner’s entitlement to the higher pay scale.
For the Respondent
Mr. N. Deka, learned Standing Counsel for APDCL, argued:
- The petitioner’s claim was barred by delay and laches, as she raised the grievance nearly 30 years after her appointment.
- The impugned communication was not decided on merits, and the matter could be remanded for reconsideration.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a three-pronged analysis to resolve the dispute:
-
Statutory Interpretation of Pay Rules The Court examined the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2017, which prescribed identical Pay Band (PB-2) and Grade Pay (Rs. 6200) for ANM/Midwife. It held that the posts were indistinguishable, and the disparity in pay scales was arbitrary and unsustainable.
-
Doctrine of Continuing Wrong Relying on M.R. Gupta v. Union of India, the Court observed:
"The appellant's grievance that his pay fixation was not in accordance with the rules, was the assertion of a continuing wrong against him which gave rise to a recurring cause of action each time he was paid a salary which was not computed in accordance with the rules."
The Court further cited Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay v. State of Jharkhand to emphasize that financial implications or administrative convenience cannot override constitutional guarantees against arbitrary discrimination.
-
Delay and Laches in Service Matters The Court distinguished between one-time wrongs (where delay may bar relief) and continuing wrongs (where fresh causes of action arise periodically). It held that the petitioner’s claim, being recurring in nature, could not be defeated by delay.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The Court held:
- The petitioner was entitled to equal pay as other similarly situated ANMs under APDCL.
- The respondent authorities were directed to re-fix the petitioner’s pay scale within 60 days.
- Arrears were restricted to three years from the date of demand (21.02.2020), in line with Union of India v. Tarsem Singh.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delay and Laches Cannot Defeat Continuing Wrongs
Practitioners handling service law disputes must now argue:
- Recurring violations (e.g., underpayment, denial of increments) create fresh causes of action each month, rendering delay irrelevant.
- Model employers (e.g., government bodies, PSUs) cannot plead their own inefficiency or negligence to deny legitimate rights.
Equal Pay for Equal Work Is Non-Negotiable
- Statutory pay scales must be uniformly applied to identical posts, regardless of historical discrepancies.
- Documentary evidence (e.g., recruitment rules, pay notifications) will prevail over oral submissions or administrative convenience.
Arrears Limited to Three Years
- Courts are likely to restrict arrears to a three-year period from the date of demand, balancing equities between employees and employers.
- Practitioners should frame demands promptly upon discovering pay disparities to maximize arrear claims.
