K. Kannan, J. - (1.) THE petitioners belonged to the cadre of Assistant Administrative Officers (for short, AAOs) and they are aggrieved by the scheme laid down providing for differential methods of application of the scale of pay to depend on the date of entry into service. The relevant date was the date of publication of the scheme and the petitioners' grievance is that though they were interviewed and recruited for vacancies that existed before the formulation of the scheme, they were issued with orders of appointment subsequent to the date of scheme, namely, on 15.10.1985. On account whereof, the petitioners failed to derive the benefit of three increments which were applied to the scales of AAOs if the appointment had been before 15.10.1985.
(2.) THE challenge to the scheme is on the ground that the scheme practices discrimination to the same class of persons occupying the same post by the only fact, the date of induction of one class prior to the date of the scheme and the persons such as the petitioners, who were brought subsequent to the scheme, were treated differently and the latter were put to detriment of denial of three increments which were provided at initial start of pay scale for persons who were recruited prior to 15.10.1985. The contention in defence is that the petitioners knew very well the application of the scheme and the salary that was assigned to them as per the scheme soon after their appointment and the writ petition itself was filed only in the year 1993, that is, 8 years after the application of the differential yardstick in the provision for increments at the start of scale of pay. The petitioners are guilty of laches. The further contention is that the scale of pay for both the persons appointed before and after were the same but only a provision for three increments was made for persons, who had been appointed prior to 15.10.1985. According to the State, this does not create any different class of persons or apply any different scales for persons in the same grade.
(3.) A prescription for cut -off period for application of various scales to the persons belonging to the same post cannot at all times be termed as arbitrary. Indeed, there are no differential scales at all for persons who were employed before the operation of the scheme of 1975 and the persons employed subsequent to the scheme. The difficulty is that the persons holding the same posts have come by different reckoning of the start in the scales of pay. While the persons, who had gained their employment on 15.10.1985 came by three increments from their initial start of pay, the persons who joined subsequent to 15.10.1985 were denied that benefit. The financial stringency or any particular reason that could render the difficulty in application of uniform package of salary would be understandable, but there is not even an attempt made in the written statement that there was any particular reason to adopt differential salaries to be given to the same class of persons performing the same type of candidates. The AAOs who had been in service on 15.10.1985 would be entitled to three increments. There is no reason why such a benefit cannot be given to persons, who had been appointed after the said date. It is wholly arbitrary and there is no valid justification even attempted to be given in the reply. The plea, on the other hand, is that the petitioners' claim was barred by laches. The counsel for the petitioner points out that in the manner of scales of pay, a plea of laches could never be set up against the persons who were entitled to the benefit since it is a recurring cause of action for each month when the monetary benefits accrue and become payable. In the decision in Saroj Kumari Versus State of Punjab - : 1998(3) PLR 123, the Full Bench was considering the case of persons, who had been dismissed from service where the claim was to fixation of pay according to the relevant rules. On a point that is not relevant to our case, the Bench held that regular employees or ad hoc employees could not be treated differently but had underscored the principle that as regards the fixation of pay, the right accrued every month and there could be no denial of such a right by delay and laches. I apply the same principle in this case to hold that the petitioners must be granted the benefit of three increments at the start of minimum of their pay scales on a notional basis and their own entitlement must be taken as enforceable for a period commencing from 38 months prior to the filing of the respective writ petitions. All the consequential benefits will be calculated and the arrears shall be released within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.;