Continuing Wrong: Why Old Pay and Pension Claims Are Still Open, With Limits

What a continuing wrong means in service law

Ordinarily a service claim has to be brought within a year of the final order under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, and old claims are turned away for delay. The idea of a continuing wrong is the main exception. If the department's mistake is not a single event that ended, but something that keeps hurting you every time you are paid, then the grievance keeps renewing itself.

The test goes back to a 1959 Supreme Court decision, Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan, which separated two things: an act that is complete once done even though its effects linger, and an act that creates a source of injury that keeps operating. Losing your job is the first kind. Being paid at the wrong rate every month is the second.

In service matters the Supreme Court applied this in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India (1995). An employee whose pay had been fixed wrongly years earlier went to the Tribunal late and was turned away. The Supreme Court said each month's pay drawn at the wrong figure gave him a fresh cause of action, so the claim to correct fixation was not barred. It added that recovering the arrears for the past was a separate question governed by limitation. That split, correction now and arrears limited, is the heart of the rule.

The Tarsem Singh judgment and its three-part rule

The Tarsem Singh judgment (Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, 2008) is the case every department now cites. A former soldier claimed disability pension some sixteen years after he was invalided out; the High Court allowed arrears for the whole period, and the Supreme Court cut them down. In doing so it set out the rule in three layers.

First, a stale service claim is normally rejected for delay or limitation. Second, a continuing wrong is an exception, and relief can be given despite long delay where the wrong keeps causing injury. Third, there is an exception to that exception: where the order also affected others and reopening it would unsettle rights those others have held for years, the old claim will not be entertained. On money, the Court said arrears should normally be confined to three years before the petition was filed.

Tarsem Singh was a writ case, and his claim was a military disability pension; today such a claim from a member of the armed forces goes to the Armed Forces Tribunal, not the CAT. The principle, though, is applied by every bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal to civil employees and pensioners, and departments quote it routinely in their replies.

2026: the three-year cap questioned for pension claims

The three-year limit is no longer as settled for pension as it was. In September 2026, in Maya Banerjee v. Union of India (2026 INSC 959), a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court dealt with the widow of a railway employee who had died in 2000 and who had been fighting for family pension for years. The High Court had granted family pension only from 2014, when she first went to the Tribunal. The Supreme Court ordered family pension from the date of death, with interest, and declined to follow Tarsem Singh on the arrears point because an earlier decision of an equal bench, S.K. Mastan Bee v. General Manager, South Central Railway, had allowed a railway widow her arrears in full and had not been considered in Tarsem Singh.

Another bench, in Union of India v. Sgt Girish Kumar (2026), held that disability pension arrears payable from a cut-off date fixed by the government's own policy could not later be trimmed to three years before the application. That case came from the Armed Forces Tribunal, but its reasoning on pension as an accrued right will be argued in civil pension cases too.

What this means in practice: for a family pension or pension claim, especially by a widow or someone who was not at fault for the delay, there is now a real argument for full arrears. For ordinary pay fixation claims by serving employees, the three-year approach is still what most benches apply. With two lines of equal-strength decisions, the point may well go to a larger bench, so check the current position before you file and plead both in the alternative.

Which old claims count as a recurring cause of action

Why one-time decisions are not continuing wrongs

Employees often argue that a promotion denied in 2014 is a continuing wrong because they are paid less every month since. The argument sounds fair and almost always fails. The denial was a single decision, and the lower pay is its effect, not a fresh wrong. If it were otherwise, every service decision ever taken would remain open forever, because almost every decision affects pay.

The same reasoning applies to dismissal, removal and compulsory retirement. A person removed from service in 2015 cannot challenge the order in 2026 on the footing that he has been without salary every month. Those orders must be challenged within the ordinary time, or with a convincing explanation for delay under Section 21(3), as described on our page about late filing and condonation of delay.

Seniority is the hardest category of all. A seniority list fixes the position of dozens or hundreds of people. Once it is final and others have been promoted on its basis, the Tribunal is very reluctant to reopen it years later. This is the 'exception to the exception' in Tarsem Singh at work: your claim may be about your own pay, but granting it would push someone else down.

How the pension arrears limit and pay arrears are worked out

The three-year rule is usually counted back from the date your Original Application is filed. If you file on 15 January 2027, arrears would ordinarily run from about 15 January 2024. Some benches have counted back from the date of a representation that the employee made promptly, but that is not the usual practice, so do not plan on it.

The pension arrears limit works the same way for retirees and families. Pensioners have a few added points, such as interest on delayed pension and the treatment of commutation, which our guide on why pension arrears are often limited to three years covers in more detail.

Interest on arrears is in the Tribunal's discretion. It is more likely where the department had the correct position in its own records and simply failed to act, and less likely where the employee sat silent for years. The Tribunal may also direct the department to calculate the amount, rather than fixing it itself, so expect a further round of checking after an order.

Lump sums are a grey zone. Gratuity, leave encashment and commutation are paid once, at retirement, on the pay recorded then. If that pay was wrong, the shortfall in those payments arose on a single date. Some benches treat the difference as a consequence of the corrected pay and order it along with the pension revision; others treat it as a one-time claim that became stale years ago. A retiree who left service in 2018 should therefore expect the monthly pension to be the stronger part of the case, and should not count on the gratuity difference until an order actually says so. Raising all of it in the same representation still makes sense, because leaving it out now usually means losing it for good.

Advocate B.K. Singh on splitting the claim in two

Advocate B.K. Singh's first practical tip is to separate the claim, in the representation and later in the OA, into two distinct reliefs: correction of the pay or pension figure from now on, and arrears for the past. The first is what the continuing wrong principle protects most strongly, and it usually matters more in the long run, especially for someone with many years of service or pension ahead. When both are asked for as one lump sum, a department's limitation objection to old arrears tends to colour the whole claim.

He also asks for a simple month-by-month sheet showing what was paid and what should have been paid, from the date of the original error to today. It shows the Tribunal at a glance that the injury repeats every month, and it makes the three-year cut-off easy to apply. It also tells the employee honestly how much money is realistically in play before any fee is discussed.

Testing your own old pay claim before you write anything

Work through these five questions with your pay slips and orders on the table.

1. Is the loss repeated every month?

   Check whether your current pay or pension is lower because of the old error. If the loss ended long ago, for example a one-off allowance not paid in 2015, the continuing wrong principle may not help.

2. Is the decision about you alone?

   If correcting your pay would change someone else's seniority, promotion or pay, expect strong resistance on delay. If it only changes your own figure, your position is better.

3. Can the facts still be proved from records?

   Old pay fixations can usually be recomputed from service book entries and pay orders. Where the claim depends on what happened at an interview or a DPC fifteen years ago, records may no longer exist, and delay weighs more heavily.

4. Did you accept the position in writing?

   An option form you signed, or a letter accepting a fixation, does not always defeat you, but it must be explained. Silent acceptance for many years can be argued as acquiescence.

5. Has the same point already been decided for others?

   If a bench or court has decided the identical point, collect that order. Our guide on reading a DoPT office memorandum also helps if the department later extended the benefit by an OM.

If the answers are mostly favourable, write a representation and keep proof of its date. Then file without waiting longer than you must.

Colleague won the same case? The fence-sitter problem

A common situation: a group of employees challenged a pay fixation in 2019, won in 2023, and the department implemented the order only for them. Others in the same cadre now ask for the same benefit. The Supreme Court considered this in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015). Its view was that where a judgment is meant to benefit everyone in a class, the department should extend it to all. Where it was given only to the parties, those who stood by and watched can be refused for delay and acquiescence.

Being a fence-sitter is not fatal for a genuine continuing wrong in your own pay. But it will usually cost you arrears, since the three-year window runs from your own filing, not your colleagues'. The longer you wait to see how their case ends, the more you lose. Our page on one OA for many employees explains when people in the same position can join a single application.

If the department has since issued a general OM extending the benefit to all similarly placed employees, you may not need a case at all. Ask in writing for the OM to be applied to you, with a copy of the OM and the earlier order.

When the department says you accepted the position

Expect the department's reply to say three things: the claim is stale, Tarsem Singh limits arrears, and you acquiesced. The third point is the one employees underestimate. In Union of India v. N. Murugesan (2022) the Supreme Court explained that delay, laches and acquiescence are related but different. Delay is about time passing. Acquiescence is about conduct: doing something that shows you accepted the decision, such as opting for a pay scale, taking a benefit under the same order, or signing a fixation statement without protest and then staying quiet for years.

Acquiescence is not a complete answer to a genuine continuing wrong, but it can tilt the Tribunal's discretion on arrears and interest. If you signed an option form or an undertaking, find it now and look at what it actually says. An option given on wrong information supplied by the office, or signed because no other choice was offered, can be explained. An option chosen freely because it paid better at the time is harder to walk back.

The honest course is to address the point in your own application rather than wait for the reply. A paragraph explaining why you signed, and when you first realised the figure was wrong, carries more weight in the OA than in a rejoinder.

Recoveries: the same principle seen from the other side

Sometimes the department, not the employee, discovers an old pay mistake, and starts recovering money from salary or pension. Each deduction is a present act, so a challenge to an ongoing recovery is not stale merely because the original fixation was made long ago. What you argue is different: under State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015), recovery is generally barred from Group C and D employees, from retirees and those about to retire, and where the excess was paid more than five years before the recovery order.

The department's best answer is usually an undertaking you signed at the time of fixation, which the Supreme Court in Jagdev Singh (2016) held can permit recovery. Find out whether you signed one. If a recovery has begun from your pension, our page on deductions from pension to recover an old overpayment explains how it can be stopped and what can be refunded.

Act within weeks, not years, when a recovery starts. Unlike a pay shortfall, where the window slides forward, a recovery takes money away each month, and an interim order stopping it is far easier to get early than after most of the amount has gone.

Group C, Group A, railway, postal and defence civilian staff

The continuing wrong principle applies equally to every group, but the kinds of errors differ. For Group C and D staff, the common old claims are wrong fixation on MACP, missed increments after long leave, and service before regularisation not counted. Group A officers more often raise pay protection on deputation, fixation on promotion through a departmental exam, or non-functional upgradation, where comparisons with batchmates can run into the third-party problem.

Railway employees have additional elements such as running allowance, which feeds into pay for pension purposes, and errors there recur in every pension payment. Railway pensions are now governed by the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 2026, which replaced the 1993 Rules; older retirements may still be calculated under the rules in force when the employee retired. Postal staff and Gramin Dak Sevaks see TRCA slab errors, which are monthly and therefore recurring. Defence civilians see pay fixation errors on reorganisation of units.

Members of the armed forces with an old pension claim should go to the Armed Forces Tribunal. CAPF personnel, PSU and bank employees go to the High Court, which applies the same delay principles under its writ jurisdiction. Our page on wrong pay level or cell after the 7th CPC covers the most common source of recent pay errors.

Time and cost from representation to order

Papers that make an old pay claim believable

Old pay claim mistakes we see often

The first mistake is writing letters for years instead of filing. Under S.S. Rathore, repeated representations do not extend time, and in a continuing wrong case each year of letters is a year of arrears lost. Our guide on when the one-year clock starts explains the limitation rule that applies to everything else.

The second is presenting a one-time grievance as a continuing one. If your claim is really about a promotion or seniority decision, call it that and deal with delay honestly through a condonation application. The Tribunal sees through relabelling, and it can weaken an otherwise reasonable explanation.

The third is asking only for arrears. A pensioner with fifteen years of pension ahead gains more from the correction than from the three years of back money. Make sure the relief clause asks for the corrected figure from the date of the order onwards, and for consequential revision of pension, gratuity and other dues where they depend on it.

What to do this week

Gather your pay slips or pension slips and the order where the error began. Work out, even roughly, how much you are losing each month now. Write a short representation to the competent authority with that figure and the rule you rely on, and keep proof of the date.

Advocate B.K. Singh's second tip is not to wait the full six months if the arrears window matters to you. Once the representation is in, start preparing the OA and a precautionary delay application, so you can file promptly when the six months end, or earlier if there is a good reason. Every month saved is a month of arrears kept. For the delay side, our page on filing late with a Section 21 application sets out what the Tribunal expects in the delay application.

If you have an old pay or pension error and want to know where you stand, speak to Advocate B.K. Singh about your papers, or ask to be told when the law on arrears changes.