High Court of Gujarat Upholds Employee's Claim for Higher Pay Scale Due to Continuing Wrong. Denial of Higher Pay Scale Constitutes Continuing Wrong, Allowing Claim Despite Delay.

High Court: Gujarat High Court
  • 38
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a dispute regarding the non-grant of a higher pay scale to the petitioner, who had been employed as a Mazdoor since 1994. The petitioner sought to quash a decision from April 24, 2013, which denied him the higher pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000, claiming entitlement based on his service and the promotional hierarchy. The respondent, Gujarat Maritime Board, had granted him a lower pay scale of Rs. 2610-3540, arguing that the next promotional post was Khalasi. The petitioner contended that the next promotional post should be Tradesman, supported by various government resolutions and previous court judgments. The respondent opposed the petition on grounds of delay and laches, asserting that the petitioner had acquiesced to the lower pay scale for years. The court analyzed the arguments, referencing previous judgments that established the principle of continuing wrongs in pay disputes. It concluded that the denial of the higher pay scale was a continuing wrong, allowing the petitioner to claim the higher pay scale despite the delay in filing the petition. The court emphasized that the right to correct pay is ongoing and can be claimed at any time, leading to the decision to grant the petitioner the higher pay scale with retrospective effect.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Right to Equal Pay - Entitlement to Higher Pay Scale - Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16 - The petitioner claimed entitlement to a higher pay scale based on his position and service duration, arguing that the next promotional post was Tradesman, not Khalasi. The court held that the denial of the higher pay scale constituted a continuing wrong, allowing the claim despite the delay in filing the petition (Paras 8-9).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a higher pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 instead of Rs. 2610-3540.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, granting the higher pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 with retrospective effect, recognizing the denial as a continuing wrong.

Law Points

  • Constitutional rights
  • Pay scale entitlement
  • Continuing wrongs
  • Delay and laches
  • Promotion hierarchy
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (GUJ) (03) 14

C/SCA/11095/2013

2026-03-06

Justice Maulik J. Shelat

MS Harshal N Pandya, MR Kanubhai M Patel, MS Dharmishta Raval, MR Hamesh C Naidu

Anil Babubhai Vaja

Gujarat Maritime Board

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging denial of higher pay scale.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought higher pay scale and arrears.

Filing Reason

Claim of entitlement to higher pay scale based on service and promotional hierarchy.

Previous Decisions

Previous court rulings established principles regarding pay scale entitlements.

Issues

Entitlement to higher pay scale Impact of delay and laches on the claim

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued entitlement to higher pay scale based on service duration and promotional hierarchy. Respondent contended that the claim was barred by delay and laches.

Ratio Decidendi

The court established that the denial of a higher pay scale constituted a continuing wrong, allowing the claim despite the delay in filing the petition.

Judgment Excerpts

The denial of the higher pay scale constituted a continuing wrong. The right to correct pay is ongoing and can be claimed at any time.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed the writ petition after the respondent rejected his claim for a higher pay scale on April 24, 2013.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Articles 14, 16
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Sets Aside Arbitrator's Order under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Holding Dispute Over Refund of Security Deposit Arbitrable. Claim for Refund of Security Deposit Does Not Constitute 'Charges' under Section 4...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Enhances Compensation for Land Acquisition for Power Grid, Reduces Development Deduction from 50% to 20%. Market Value Determined at Rs.260 per sq. ft. Based on Comparable Sale Deed Under Section 23 of Land Acquisition Act, 18...