SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. - (1.) BEING aggrieved with the order dated 13 -8 -2008 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4421/2008 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the appellants/ petitioners have filed this writ appeal.
(2.) THE facts, briefly stated, are as under: Appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were working on the post of Principals, Government Higher Secondary Schools. They have already retired from services. Appellant No. 4 is still working on the post of Principal, Government Higher Secondary School. The appellants were promoted to the post of Principals in the pay scale of Rs. 2375 -75 -3200 -100 -3500 -125 -4125/ - vide order dated 30 -7 -1990. As per the promotion orders, they joined on the promotional posts. Later on, the State Government vide order dated 19 -3 -1991 substituted the above pay -scales of the Principals by Rs. 2000 -60 -2300 -75 -3200 -100 -3500/ -in place of earlier pay scale of Rs. 2375 -4125/ -. According to the said order, the higher pay scale in the earlier order was quoted on account of clerical mistake. According to the appellants, the said order was challenged before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by many other Principals and it was directed that the petitioners of the said cases would draw the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 2375 -4125/ -. One of such orders has been filed as Annexure P -3 in the writ petition. It is stated that the State of Madhya Pradesh filed the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the order passed by the High Court, but the same was dismissed. The review petition filed against the order of Special Leave Petition was also dismissed. All these facts are mentioned in the order dated 24 -7 -2007, copy of which has been filed as Annexure P -4 in the writ petition. The contention of the appellants/petitioners is that they are at par with the Principals in whose favour the orders have already been passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, their salaries may also be fixed on the pay scale which was initially given to them and accordingly, the arrears with interest and all consequential benefits be given to them. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that it was delayed by almost 17 years and the appellants have filed the petition without any explanation or justification for the said delay. Mr. Rakesh Pandey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that the said action of the State was a continuing wrong giving rise to a recurring cause of action every month on the occasion of payment of salary. Even the recurring cause of action continues on payment of every month's pension, therefore, the writ petition would not have been dismissed on account of delay and laches. He relied on the decision rendered in the matter of M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 628.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents, opposed these arguments and supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. ;