Shri. Vishnu Piraji Hajare vs The Divisional Controller, ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2788 Bom

Bombay High Court

Shri. Vishnu Piraji Hajare vs The Divisional Controller, ... on 17 March, 2026

Author: Amit Borkar

Bench: Amit Borkar

2026:BHC-AS:12837
                                                                                            wp10537-2013-J.doc


                           AGK
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                 WRIT PETITION NO.10537 OF 2013

    ATUL                   Vishnu Piraji Hajare,
    GANESH
    KULKARNI               Age 63 years, Occu.: Retired,
    Digitally signed by
    ATUL GANESH
                           residing at Row House No.5,
    KULKARNI
    Date: 2026.03.17
    12:27:57 +0530
                           Akshardham, Near Ashok Tower,
                           Nashik                                                  ... petitioner
                                                           Vs.
                                1. The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra
                                   State Road Transport Corporation,
                                   Divisional Office, N.D. Patel Road,
                                   Nashik 422 001
                                2. Chief Accountant Officer, Maharashtra
                                   State Road Transport Corporation,
                                   Central Office, Dr. Anandrao Nair Road,
                                   Mumbai Central, Mumbai 400 008          ... respondents


                           Ms. Seema Sarnaik, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Ameya
                           Tamhane for the petitioner.
                           Mr. Arafat Sieeique i/by Ms. Pinky M. Bhansali for the
                           respondents.


                                                         CORAM            : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                         RESERVED ON      : FEBRUARY 27, 2026.

                                                         PRONOUNCED ON    : MARCH 17, 2026

                           JUDGMENT:

1. The present writ petition is instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By way of this petition, the petitioner calls in question the legality and correctness of the Judgment and

wp10537-2013-J.doc

Order dated 30 July 2013 passed by the Industrial Court at Nashik in Complaint (ULP) No. 59 of 2009. By the said judgment, the Industrial Court dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner.

2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition may be briefly stated. The petitioner entered the service of the respondents as a Building Clerk with effect from 8 January 1972 and continued to serve the respondents without interruption. In due course, the petitioner came to be promoted to the post of Building Inspector with effect from 3 July 1981. The said post was equivalent to that of a Sub Engineer. Upon such promotion, the petitioner was placed in the pay scale applicable to the post of Sub Engineer. The petitioner contends that the respondents, without assigning any justifiable reason, placed him under suspension with effect from 2 July 1990. At the time when the order of suspension was issued, the petitioner was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 1,330. By a letter dated 2 July 1990 issued to the petitioner, the respondents informed him that the period of suspension would be treated as paid leave. It was further stated that in the event the available paid leave was exhausted, the remaining period of suspension would be treated as leave without pay. The letter also clarified that such leave without pay would not amount to a break in service. According to the petitioner, in view of this communication, the period of suspension was not liable to be treated as a break in service and he was therefore entitled to all consequential service benefits for the said period.

3. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal from service, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the competent Appellate

wp10537-2013-J.doc

Authority. The Appellate Authority of the respondents, after conducting a domestic enquiry, passed an order reinstating the petitioner in service on the post of Building Inspector with effect from 2 February 1999. The order of reinstatement directed that the petitioner would be reinstated without any monetary benefits for the period from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. The order further indicated that the petitioner would not be entitled to financial benefits for the intervening period though the reinstatement was with continuity of service. The petitioner submits that once he was reinstated with continuity of service, the respondents were required to treat his service from 1989 to 1999 as continuous service on the post of Building Inspector and to fix his pay accordingly. During the said period, two agreements or settlements were entered into between the respondents and their employees in the years 1992 and 1996 providing for revision and increase of salary. According to the petitioner, these settlements were required to be taken into account while determining his pay scale. Though the petitioner was reinstated on the post of Building Inspector with effect from 2 February 1999, his pay scale was fixed at Rs. 2,750 instead of Rs. 4,125, which according to him was the correct pay scale.

4. After reinstatement in service, the petitioner was assigned various field duties from time to time. The petitioner asserts that his service record remained satisfactory. He was entrusted with duties such as special checking inspector and wireless inspector during various religious occasions. He also worked as a license inspector in the transport department and succeeded in recovering

wp10537-2013-J.doc

outstanding dues from license holders. The petitioner further states that he was awarded a certificate of appreciation by the Collector of Nashik for the work performed by him as a wireless inspector during the Kumbha Mela. The petitioner submits that despite his entitlement, his pay scale came to be fixed at Rs. 2,750 instead of Rs. 4,125. He therefore addressed several letters and applications to the respondents requesting correction of his pay fixation. In the year 2000, the petitioner issued a notice declaring that he would undertake a hunger strike and accordingly commenced a hunger strike from 15 August 2000 which continued for about four days. During the course of the said protest, the petitioner received a letter dated 18 August 2000 from the respondents informing him that his pay scale had been revised from Rs. 2,750 to Rs. 3,360. According to the petitioner, even this revised fixation was erroneous as his pay ought to have been fixed at Rs. 4,125. The petitioner further relies upon a letter dated 23 December 1999 issued by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 wherein it was indicated that while fixing the petitioner's pay scale, he should be granted the benefit of the two agreements or settlements entered into during the intervening period in the years 1992 and 1996. Subsequently, by another letter dated 16 April 2001 addressed by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2, it was specifically stated that the petitioner's pay scale ought to be fixed at Rs. 4,125. The petitioner contends that notwithstanding these communications, the respondents continued to fix his pay scale at Rs. 3,360 instead of Rs. 4,125.

wp10537-2013-J.doc

5. The petitioner states that he ultimately retired from service on 31 May 2009 while holding the post of Sub Engineer. According to the petitioner, the retirement benefits payable to him were calculated on the basis of the pay scale of Rs. 3,360. The petitioner contends that such computation of retirement benefits on the basis of an incorrect pay scale has caused financial loss to him. The petitioner further states that in his service book an entry had been made on page 14 reflecting the pay scale of Rs. 4,125 with effect from 2 February 1999. However, the said entry was subsequently cancelled by the respondents. The petitioner asserts that the said cancellation was effected without granting him any opportunity of hearing.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid actions of the respondents, the petitioner instituted Complaint (ULP) No. 59 of 2009 before the Industrial Court at Nashik under Section 28(1) read with Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. By the said complaint, the petitioner sought fixation of his pay scale at Rs. 4,125 along with all consequential benefits. The respondents appeared in the proceedings and filed their written statement opposing the complaint. The respondents contended that the pay scale of Rs. 3,360 which had been granted to the petitioner was proper and in accordance with the applicable rules and therefore no unfair labour practice had been committed by them. During the course of the proceedings before the Industrial Court, both sides led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions. Upon consideration of the material placed

wp10537-2013-J.doc

on record, the Industrial Court by its Judgment and Order dated 30 July 2013 dismissed Complaint (ULP) No. 59 of 2009. According to the petitioner, had his pay scale been correctly fixed at Rs. 4,125, he would have been entitled to receive retirement benefits to the extent of Rs. 8,00,000. However, the respondents paid him only a sum of Rs. 3,75,000 towards his retirement dues at the time of his retirement. The petitioner therefore claims that he was entitled to receive an additional sum of Rs. 4,25,000 from the respondents as on 31 May 2009, being the date of his retirement. The petitioner further claims interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum on the said amount of Rs. 4,25,000 from 31 May 2009 until the date of actual payment. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

7. Ms. Sarnaik, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that by order dated 30 May 1998 the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service. She pointed out that the said order specifically provided that the petitioner would not be entitled to any monetary benefits for the period from the date of dismissal until the date of reinstatement. According to the learned Senior Advocate, the clear intention of the said order was only to deny back wages for the intervening period and not to deprive the petitioner of the benefits arising out of settlements applicable during that period. She submitted that the petitioner could not be treated as a fresh appointee upon reinstatement. It was contended that since the order restricted only the grant of monetary benefits for the past period, the petitioner was entitled

wp10537-2013-J.doc

to continuity of service and to the consequential service benefits flowing therefrom.

8. The learned Senior Advocate further submitted that at the time of reinstatement the petitioner was placed in a pay scale of Rs. 2,570, which was the pay scale applicable to a newly appointed clerk. According to her, such fixation was erroneous and the petitioner ought to have been placed in the pay scale of Rs. 4,125. She pointed out that by an office communication dated 18 August 2000 the petitioner's pay scale came to be revised to Rs. 3,360. It was further submitted that in the petitioner's service book an entry had been made fixing his pay scale at Rs. 4,125 with effect from 1 April 1996 pursuant to the settlement of the year 1996. However, the said entry was subsequently deleted without conducting any inquiry and without issuing any notice to the petitioner. The learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the petitioner retired from service on 31 May 2009 and thereafter filed Complaint (ULP) No. 59 of 2009 on 9 July 2009. She also relied upon an office order dated 7 November 2000 by which the petitioner's pay scale was fixed at Rs. 4,125 with effect from 2 February 1999, though according to her the said order was never given effect to. She further submitted that the respondents had taken the stand that since the petitioner was terminated on 2 July 1990 and was not in service on 31 March 1992, he was not entitled to the benefits flowing from the settlement of the year 1992.

9. The learned Senior Advocate further submitted that during the course of cross-examination the respondents had admitted that

wp10537-2013-J.doc

after reinstatement the petitioner's pay fixation had been carried out at Rs. 4,125. According to her, the petitioner had repeatedly made representations seeking implementation of the said pay scale. She submitted that the liability of the respondents to pay the correct salary arose every month and therefore the cause of action was recurring in nature. On this basis, she contended that the complaint filed by the petitioner could not have been dismissed on the ground of limitation.

10. Per contra, Ms. Bhansali learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the petition. She submitted that no unfair labour practice had been committed by the respondents. It was further contended that there was no employer employee relationship subsisting between the parties and therefore the complainant had no locus to institute the complaint. She also submitted that there was a delay of about ten years and five months in filing the complaint. According to her, under Section 28 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 the complaint was required to be filed within ninety days and no application for condonation of delay had been filed. It was contended that the complaint suffered from inordinate delay and laches without any reasonable explanation. The learned Advocate further submitted that while working as a Building Inspector the petitioner had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 11,151. She submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits arising from the settlements of the years 1992 and 1996 as no documentary evidence had been produced in support of such claim. According to her, the past service record of the petitioner was unsatisfactory and

wp10537-2013-J.doc

blemished. She submitted that there was no material on record to substantiate the complaint filed by the petitioner and therefore the writ petition deserved to be dismissed.

REASONS AND ANALYSIS:

11. The first question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner was reinstated in service with continuity or whether he was to be treated as a fresh appointee after reinstatement. The material placed before this Court shows that the order directing reinstatement restricted only the grant of monetary benefits for the intervening period between dismissal and reinstatement. The order clearly states that the petitioner would not be entitled to financial benefits for the said period. However, the order does not state anywhere that the petitioner would be treated as a fresh recruit in service. It is necessary to carefully read the language of the order. When an authority intends to treat reinstatement as a fresh appointment, such intention is normally expressed in clear terms. In the present case no such expression is found. The order merely denies back wages for the intervening period.

12. Therefore, when the order is read as a whole, the natural meaning which emerges is that the petitioner was restored to his original position in service but without monetary benefits for the past period. Such an order preserves continuity of service. Once continuity is preserved, the employee does not lose the benefit of his earlier service. His service is treated as continuing for the limited purpose of seniority, pay progression and other service related advantages, subject of course to the restriction placed by

wp10537-2013-J.doc

the authority regarding back wages. The denial of past wages does not automatically destroy the continuity of service. These are two separate matters. The authority may deny wages for the period during which the employee did not work. At the same time the authority may still recognise that the employee remains part of the service stream. For this reason the contention of the petitioner that he continued in service and was entitled to benefits flowing from such continuity appears to have substance.

13. The next objection raised by the respondents relates to delay and laches. According to the respondents the complaint was filed after a long period and therefore it ought to have been dismissed as barred by limitation. This contention must be examined in the light of the legal principle laid down in the decision in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 628. The petitioner filed Complaint No. 59 of 2009 on 9 July 2009. It is also a matter of record that the petitioner retired from service on 31 May 2009. The complaint was thus filed shortly after retirement. The grievance of the petitioner is that his pay was wrongly fixed at a lower scale and that throughout his service after reinstatement he continued to receive salary calculated on the basis of that incorrect fixation. When such a situation arises, the law treats the wrong as a continuing one. Each month when salary is paid on the basis of a wrong pay scale, the wrong repeats itself. It does not remain confined to a single past event. Instead, it continues to operate every time salary is disbursed. For that reason the law recognises that a fresh cause of action arises each time such payment is made. Therefore, if an employee approaches the Court complaining that

wp10537-2013-J.doc

his salary was wrongly computed, the Court does not simply examine the date of the original pay fixation order alone. The Court must also consider the continuing effect of that wrong on every monthly salary.

14. In the present case, the petitioner continued to receive salary on the allegedly incorrect scale until his retirement in May 2009. The last instance of the alleged wrong therefore occurred when his final salary and retirement benefits were computed. The complaint filed in July 2009 followed soon after that event. In such circumstances it cannot be said that the petitioner slept over his rights in a manner that would defeat his claim altogether. The respondents attempted to calculate delay by referring to an earlier period of ten years and five months. However, where the cause of action is recurring, such calculation cannot be mechanically applied. The principle laid down in M.R. Gupta makes it clear that the Court cannot reject the claim merely on limitation when the complaint essentially seeks correction of an ongoing wrong in pay fixation. For this reason the objection regarding limitation cannot be accepted in the rigid manner suggested by the respondents.

15. Another important aspect relates to the entry made in the service book of the petitioner. According to the petitioner an entry was made in his service book recording that his pay scale stood fixed at Rs. 4,125. This entry was subsequently cancelled by the respondents. The petitioner asserts that such cancellation was carried out without issuing any notice to him and without conducting any form of inquiry. The service book of an employee is an important official record. It contains details regarding pay,

wp10537-2013-J.doc

increments, promotions and other service matters. Entries made in the service book directly affect the financial and service rights of the employee. When such an entry confers a benefit, it cannot be casually removed or altered without following a fair procedure. The principle of natural justice requires that when an administrative authority proposes to take a decision which may adversely affect the rights of an individual, the individual must be given an opportunity of being heard. This principle is not merely technical. It is rooted in fairness. In service matters also the same principle applies. If an entry granting a particular pay scale is proposed to be deleted, the employee concerned must be informed of the proposed action and must be given an opportunity to explain his position. The record before this Court does not show that any such opportunity was given to the petitioner before deleting the entry of Rs. 4,125 from the service book. The respondents have not produced any document indicating that a notice was issued or that the petitioner was heard in the matter. In the absence of such material the action of deleting the entry appears to suffer from procedural unfairness. This aspect therefore weakens the defence taken by the respondents regarding the correctness of the deletion.

16. Another circumstance which assumes importance arises from the evidence recorded in the proceedings. During cross examination it was admitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner's pay fixation at Rs. 4,125 had been made after reinstatement. Admissions made during evidence carry considerable weight. When a party makes a statement against its

wp10537-2013-J.doc

own interest during cross examination, such statement forms part of the evidentiary record. Courts cannot disregard such admissions unless there is strong reason to do so. In the present case the admission regarding fixation at Rs. 4,125 strengthens the petitioner's claim that the said scale was indeed recognised at some stage. If that position was later altered or reversed, the respondents were expected to explain the circumstances clearly. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation the admission operates in favour of the petitioner's case.

17. The next aspect concerns the nature of relief which can be granted. The principle laid down in M.R. Gupta clarifies that when an employee succeeds in establishing that his pay fixation was incorrect, he becomes entitled to correction of that fixation. The wrong must cease for the future. At the same time the law distinguishes between correction of pay and recovery of past arrears. If certain arrears fall beyond the permissible limitation period, the employee may not be able to recover that portion. However, the right to have the pay correctly fixed does not disappear merely because some arrears may be time-barred.

18. In the present case the complaint was filed shortly after retirement. The petitioner has claimed that he was entitled to the higher pay scale and that he suffered financial loss because of the lower scale applied by the respondents. Considering the entire record, the appropriate course would be to direct re fixation of the petitioner's pay at the correct scale from the date of reinstatement. Once the pay is properly fixed, the respondents must calculate the difference in salary which the petitioner ought to have received

wp10537-2013-J.doc

until the date of retirement. If on examination of records any part of the arrears is shown to be barred by limitation, the respondents may point out the same with proper explanation. The burden of establishing such limitation would naturally lie upon the respondents because they are in possession of the service records and payment details.

19. Finally, the question of interest also arises. The petitioner has contended that because of the incorrect pay fixation he received lower retirement benefits and therefore suffered financial loss. He has claimed interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum from the date of retirement. The claim for interest cannot be brushed aside lightly. When a person is deprived of money that lawfully belongs to him, the delay in payment results in loss of use of that money. Grant of interest in such circumstances is a recognised method to compensate for that delay.

20. In the present case, the petitioner specifically sought interest as part of his relief. The respondents had sufficient opportunity to oppose that claim. However, no substantial legal ground has been placed before the Court to deny interest altogether. Therefore, if upon proper computation certain amounts are found payable to the petitioner as arrears, it would be just and reasonable to allow interest on those sums. Such interest will compensate the petitioner for the period during which the amount due to him remained unpaid due to the erroneous pay fixation.

21. In view of the discussion and findings recorded in the foregoing paragraphs, the petition deserves to be partly allowed.

wp10537-2013-J.doc

The operative directions are therefore issued as follows.

(i) The Judgment and Order dated 30 July 2013 passed by the Industrial Court, Nashik in Complaint (ULP) No. 59 of 2009 is quashed and set aside.

(ii) It is declared that the petitioner is entitled to fixation of his pay scale at Rs. 4,125 with effect from the date of his reinstatement in service, in accordance with the applicable settlements and service record.

(iii) The respondents are directed to re-fix the pay of the petitioner on the aforesaid basis and to carry out necessary correction in the service record of the petitioner accordingly.

(iv) Upon such re-fixation, the respondents shall compute the arrears payable to the petitioner. However, the monetary relief shall be restricted to a period of three years preceding the date of filing of Complaint (ULP) No. 59 of 2009, in view of the settled principle that though improper pay fixation constitutes a continuing wrong, recovery of arrears remains subject to the bar of limitation.

(v) The respondents shall therefore calculate and pay to the petitioner the difference in salary and consequential retirement benefits arising from the revised pay fixation for the said period of three years prior to 9 July 2009.

(vi) The aforesaid amount shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of this order.

wp10537-2013-J.doc

(vii) In the event the amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date it becomes payable until actual payment.

22. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)