RUSHIBHAI JAGDISHCHANDRA PATHAK v. BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

HELD: 1.1 The doctrine of delay and laches, or for that matter statutes of limitation, are considered to be statutes of repose and statutes of peace, though some contrary opinions have been expressed. The courts have expressed the view that the law of limitation rests on the foundations of greater public interest for three reasons, namely, (a) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them; (b) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to disapprove a stale claim; and (iii) that persons with good causes of action (who are able to enforce them) should pursue them with reasonable diligence. Equally, change in de facto position or character, creation of third party rights over a period of time, waiver, acquiesce, and need to ensure certitude in dealings, are equitable public policy considerations why period of limitation is prescribed by law. Law of limitation does not apply to writ petitions, albeit the discretion vested with a constitutional court is exercised with caution as delay and laches principle is applied with the aim to secure the quiet of the community, suppress fraud and perjury, quicken diligence, and prevent oppression. [Para 9][1021-A-D]

1.2 The law recognises a ‘continuing’ cause of action which may give rise to a ‘recurring’ cause of action as in the case of salary or pension. So long as the employee is in service, a fresh cause of action would arise every month when they are paid their salary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to the rules. If the employee’s claim is found to be correct on merits, they would be entitled to be paid according to the properly fixed pay-scale in future and the question of limitation would arise for recovery of the arrears for the past period. [Para 10][1022-E-G]

1.3 The respondent-Corporation had accepted the interpretation rendered by the High Court to the Scheme whereby A B C D E F G H 1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R. the appellants, on financial upgradation, would be entitled to the higher grade pay-scale of the next promotional post, which is Rs.5,000-8,000/- in the instant case. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench accepts the said position and grants the appellants the said pay-scale but restricts the benefit from the date of the judgment of the Single Judge in the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants, that is, with effect from 31.07.2018. The Division Bench should not have taken the date of the decision/ judgment of the Single Judge for grant of the said benefit in view of the decision and ratio in Tarsem Singh’s case. Only date of filing of the writ petition is relevant while examining the question of delay and laches or limitation. The appellants would be entitled to the arrears for three years before the date of filing of the Writ Petitions. [Para 14][1025-E-G; 1026-A]

1.4 There is an inclination to grant interest to the appellants on the arrears at the rate of 7% per annum, which would be payable with effect from 1.09.2017. The said date is fixed for grant of interest as the respondent-Corporation has accepted the interpretation of the Scheme rendered on 16.08.2016 in the Writ Petition preferred by MJ. Normally, and as a model employer, on accepting the said decision, the respondent should have uniformly applied and granted the benefit to all its similarly situated employees affected by the order dated 28th October 2010. This would have avoided unnecessary litigation before the courts. [Para 15][1026-B-C]

1.5 The prayer of the appellants that they should be given arrears right from 2010 has to be rejected. The prayer of the appellants that they should be refunded the entire amount which had been collected by the respondent-Corporation in terms of the order dated 28th October 2010 is rejected. The appellants would be entitled to arrears in the pre-revised pay-scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/- for three years prior to the date of filing of the Writ Petitions along with interest at the rate of 7% pa with effect from 1st September 2017. The arrears, with interest, would be paid within the stipulated period. [Para 16, 17][1027-F-H] A B C D E F G H RUSHIBHAI JAGDISHCHANDRA PATHAK v. BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 1017