THROUGH the judgement of the two writ petitions filed by the Secretary, Ankush Shikshan Sanstha and its G H Raisoni College of Engineering, Nagpur against the Registrar, RTM Nagpur University, the Chairman, Grievance Committee under the University and retired employees, Surekha Sanjay Kadu (62)/ Anil Natthuji Dongare, Justice R M Joshi, at the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, has partly allowed these petitions on July 4, 2025 and confirmed the impugned orders passed by the Grievance Committee, except the direction of payment of arrears of wages. The HC has held that the employees are entitled for the arrears of wages for the period of three years prior to the date of their superannuation along with interest at 9 pc per annum.

 

The issue involved in these petitions was as to whether the respondent-3, ex-employees of the petitioner educational institution were entitled for the monetary benefits of 5th, 6th and 7th Pay Commissions from the date of their entitlement or for the period of three years prior to filing of proceedings before the Grievance Committee. The petitioner-employer have challenged the order passed on October 4, 2021, by the Grievance Committee constituted under the RTM Nagpur University, whereby the Grievance Committee had granted monetary benefits of 5th and 6th Pay Commissions to the respondent-employees from the date of its approval along with the interest at 9 pc per annum. It had been the case of the employees that inspite of their regular appointment, they were not paid salary as per the Rules and that they were denied the benefits of 5th, 6th and 7th Pay Commissions. The HC has held that entitlement for the period beyond 3 years would depend upon fact of each case and normally the reasonable period would be three years.

 

It is further recorded therein that management therein by recognising entitlement of non teaching staff had paid their dues by a compromise without raising argument of three years. A note was taken by the court of series of representations made from year 2011 to 2017 and hence it is held that it cannot be said that the employees had given up their right. The High Court has culled down the principles from the judgements cited before the Court, that (i)A claim of wages /difference is tenable is tenable even if filed beyond three years.(ii)In case, if such claim is made belatedly, ordinarily the Court would restrict the same for period of three years. (iii) Mere making of representation, would not entitle the claim for period beyond three years, if the claim is made belatedly. (iv)There is no fixed rule of restricting or not the benefits of for three years only on/or it would depend upon facts of each case. Admittedly, employees except making one representation in the year 2008, have not made any attempt to seek the right in respect of Pay Commissions.

 

It was contended on behalf of the respondent-retired employees that they were pressurised by management in not raising the claim on record as claimed by the employees in support of their plea. In support of this submission, reference was sought to be made to the letter of appointment issued by the petitioner-College to the employee wherein there was a stipulation of the termination of services of employees without assigning reason with other conditions Private employers often impose such condition in the letter of appointment, however, the position of law is quite settled to say that such stipulation in letter of appointment is irrelevant and that the services of an employee cannot be terminated same and except by following due process of law. Perusal of letters issued to A N Dongare indicates that pursuant to his application and subsequent interview he came to be appointed. Pertinently, no action in this regard was taken by the employees for the entire long period of their employment and as such it is not open for the employees to claim that due to the issuance of said letter of appointment, they were prevented from raising the claim. Once it is claimed that petitioners were prevented from doing so, by pressurising or otherwise by actual prohibition must be established. If unsubstantiated stand is allowed to be accepted then in every case, it would be sufficient for an employee to simply state that he was prohibited from raising the claim and therefore, he is entitled for entire claim and the same cannot be restricted for period of three years.

 

There cannot be any presumption that the Management would prevent the employee from taking action as provided by law and such allegation must be proved by cogent material. So far as the case of the employees about the representation being made is concerned, it has been held by the Supreme Court mere making representation would not extend the period of limitation and entitles an employee to claim monetary benefits for period beyond three years. In contrast, in the present case, after making representation in the year 2008, there is absolutely nothing till the year 2017, that is, till superannuation of these employees. Though there cannot be any straight jacket formula, to say that an employee would be entitled for the monetary benefits for a restricted period of three years before the date of filing of proceeding, unless it is shown that the employee apart from making representation had taken some positive steps to assert his right in accordance with law, but this element is absent in the case.

 

The claim was made for period from August 1, 1999 to October 31, 2016, on April 15, 2019. Thus, the first claim relates back to 20 years and last of such claim was made after two and half years of superannuation. The claim therefore, made for period beyond 3 years could be said to be stale or dead claim and certainly beyond reasonable period. The HC has held that the employees herein are entitled for the arrears for the period of three years before their superannuation. The interest at 9 pc per annum awarded by the Grievance Committee is just and proper and therefore, does not deserve any interference.