Three-Year Limitation on Salary Arrears Claims Upheld: Bombay HC Restricts Teacher's Back Pay Despite Continuous Employment
Pranav Kumar
31 Oct 2024 8:30 AM IST
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench comprising Justice Mangesh S. Patil and Justice Shailesh P. Brahme partially allowed a writ petition challenging an Education Officer's order regarding salary arrears, ruling that despite continuous employment, claims for salary arrears must be restricted to three years preceding the filing of the petition. The court, while acknowledging the teacher's right to full pay, applied the limitation principle from Union of India v. Tarsem Singh [(2008) 8 SCC 648] to restrict the monetary claim period.
Background
The case arose from a dispute between Shishuvihar Shaishanik Sanstha and their Assistant Teacher, Avinash Tulshiram Pawar, who was appointed on an unaided post on June 21, 2013. Though his appointment was approved by the Education Officer on December 31, 2013, Pawar received only Rs. 1,29,800 against his entitled salary during his service period. After approaching the High Court through Writ Petition No. 1398/2021, the matter was referred to the Education Officer, who ruled in Pawar's favor, prompting the institution to file the present petition.
Arguments
Firstly, the petitioners argued that Pawar's appointment was explicitly on fixed pay, making him ineligible for regular scale salary. Secondly, they invoked the principle from Union of India v. Tarsem Singh [(2008) 8 SCC 648] to assert that the claim was time-barred, as Pawar had waited until 2021 to demand arrears from 2013. Thirdly, they challenged his qualifications and eligibility for continued employment. Pawar, in response, claimed entitlement to Rs. 29,71,391, arguing that he had only received Rs. 1,29,800 thus far. He emphasized that his services continued until December 13, 2022, when he was terminated - a matter currently under appeal before the School Tribunal, Nasik. Further, he maintained that since he had rendered continuous service, his cause of action was recurring, making the claim valid.
The Decision
Firstly, the court acknowledged that there was no dispute about Pawar's basic entitlement to proper salary, as his appointment was duly approved and he had rendered services from June 2013 to December 2022. The court noted the significant disparity between his entitled amount and the actual payment received.
Secondly, the court addressed the question of limitation for monetary claims. While recognizing the concept of continuing wrong, it distinguished between the right to receive proper salary (which could be a continuing wrong) and the right to claim arrears (which would be subject to limitation). Following Tarsem Singh, the court established that monetary claims should typically be restricted to three years preceding the petition filing date.
Thirdly, the court distinguished the case of Keraleeya Samajam v. Pratibha Dattatray Kulkarni [2021 SCC OnLine SC 853], noting that it dealt with a different context where pay commission recommendations were automatically applicable. The court also distinguished Sandeep Babasaheb Chate v. Shri Vardhaman Sthanakwasi Jain Shrawak Sangh [Writ Petition 1451/2017], observing that it didn't address the specific point of law regarding limitation of arrears claims.
Lastly, albeit with modifications, the court agreed with the Education Officer's order. It directed that Pawar receive arrears from December 7, 2017, to December 7, 2020 (three years preceding his petition), to be disbursed from the Rs. 10 lakhs already deposited by the institution. The court also provided for additional payment with 6% interest if the calculated amount exceeded the deposited sum.
Date: 21 October 2024
Citation: 2024:BHC-AUG:25849-DB
Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. S.R. Barlinge
AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: Mr. S.R. Yadav-Lonikar
Advocate for Respondent No. 4: Mr. V.S. Panpatte
