ORDER R.V. Raveendran, C.J. Petitioner was initially appointed as Draughtsman in the Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur under the control of Ordnance Factory Board, on 3-11-1971, in the pay scale of Rs. 150-240/- . At the time of entering into service, he held a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering (three year course after matriculation). By order dated 12-3-1972, he was given benefit of a higher initial pay of Rs. 175/- in the pay-scale of Rs. 150-240 from the date of his initial appointment (3-11-1971). Thereafter the Petitioner was given increments, promotions, higher pay scales and revised pay scales from time to time. The petitioner ultimately retired from service in the year 2004. Twenty nine years after entering into service and four years before his retirement, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench in O.A. No. 307/2000 praying that his pay be fixed in the scale of Rs. 205-280 with effect from the date of his entering into service (that is from 3-11-1971) instead of the pay scale of Rs. 150-240. He also sought consequential point to point re-fixation. (Note: He also made certain other prayers which were held by the Tribunal to be not maintainable as he had earlier approached the Tribunal in O.A. 12/1989 for such reliefs and they had been rejected by order dated 19-5-1999). The said claim for a higher scale of pay, was based on an observation in the Third Central Pay Commission Report (1973). The Tribunal rejected the application by order dated 12-2-2004 holding that apart from the question of delay and laches, it had no jurisdiction to decide the application in respect of a cause of action which arose more than three years before the establishment of the Tribunal in the year 1985. The said order is challenged in this petition. On the contentions urged, two points are for consideration: (i) Whether Petitioner had a continuing cause of action and therefore rejection of the application by Tribunal was contrary to the law laid down in M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India and others, (ii) Even assuming that the principle in M.R. Gupta would apply, whether the claim for application of higher pay scale is tenable. Union of India and others, (ii) Even assuming that the principle in M.R. Gupta would apply, whether the claim for application of higher pay scale is tenable. Re: Point (i) The Petitioner contends that where the grievance is in regard to fixation of initial pay, the claim is in regard to a continuous wrong and in such a situation the question of limitation would not arise and as long as the employee is in service and a wrong payment is made every month, a fresh cause of action arises. Therefore, it is contended, any claim for fixation of initial pay would not be barred by time insofar as notional fixation and monetary relief for a period of three years prior to the application before the Tribunal and for future payments, having regard to the principle laid down in M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India and others, In M.R. Gupta, the employee approached the Tribunal on 4-9-1989 for fixation of initial pay with effect from 1-8-1978 when he joined service in the Railways. He contended that the fixation done when he joined service was incorrect and that he was entitled to addition of one increment in accordance with Rule 2018 (corresponding to Fundamental Rule 22-C). The claim was rejected even before the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 ('Act' for short) came into force. The Tribunal rejected the application on the ground of limitation holding that the cause of action arose at the time of initial fixation of his pay in the year 1978 or latest on rejection of his representation, which was before coming into force of the Act. A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court while remitting the matter to the Tribunal for consideration of the application afresh, enunciated the legal position thus: "The Appellants' grievance that his pay fixation was not in accordance with rules, was the assertion of a continuing wrong against him which gave rise to a recurring cause of action each time he was paid a salary which was not computed in accordance with the Rules. So long as the Appellant is in service, a fresh cause of action arises every month if he is paid his monthly salary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to rules. So long as the Appellant is in service, a fresh cause of action arises every month if he is paid his monthly salary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to rules. It is no doubt true that if the Appellant's claim is found correct on merits, he would be entitled to be paid according to the properly fixed pay scale in future and the question of limitation would arise for recovery of arrears for the past period. In other words, the Appellant's claim, if any, for recovery of arrears calculated on the basis of difference in the pay which has become time barred would not be recoverable, but he would be entitled to proper fixation of his pay in accordance with rules and to cessation of a continuing wrong if on merits, his claim is justified. Similarly, any other consequential relief claimed by him, such as promotion etc. would also be subject to the defence of laches etc., to disentitle him to those reliefs. The pay fixation can be made only on the basis of the situation existing on 1-8-1978 without taking into account any other consequential relief which may be barred by his laches and the bar of limitation. It is to this limited extent of proper pay fixation, the application cannot be treated as time barred since it is based on recurring cause of action. The Tribunal misdirected itself when it treated the Appellant's claim as 'one time action' meaning thereby that it was not a continuing wrong based on a recurring cause of action. The claim to be paid, the correct salary computed on the basis of proper pay fixation, is a right which subsists during the entire tenure of service and can be exercised at the time of each payment of the salary when the employee is entitled to salary computed correctly in accordance with the rules. The Principle in M.R. Gupta will apply where the re-fixation is sought on the ground of an error in calculation (incorrect computation), or where the entitlement for re-fixation is not disputed. The Principle in M.R. Gupta will apply where the re-fixation is sought on the ground of an error in calculation (incorrect computation), or where the entitlement for re-fixation is not disputed. It will also apply to a case where there is no dispute about applicability of a particular pay scale, but the pay had been wrongly fixed in a different pay scale; or to a case where there was a wrong fixation in the same pay scale contrary to the Rules; or to a case where the fixation of pay was erroneously done by not calculating the initial pay in the pay scale as contemplated under Fundamental Rule 22(I)(a)(i) corresponding to old F.R. 22(C). But where, the employee wants an adjudication on a claim that he is entitled to a pay scale not in the Rules, or where he claims a pay scale which under the Rules does not apply to his post, the issue is not one of re-fixation at all. In such a case, the claim requires adjudication of a right which was never made earlier, or having been made, not pursued. The relief of re-fixation in such a case, is only an incidental consequence and should not be confused with a straight forward claim for re-fixation of pay considered in M.R. Gupta. The bar of limitation (where the claim is before an Administrative Tribunal) or principle of delay and laches (where the claim is in a writ proceedings) would apply, to the adjudication of belated claims for such rights. To put it differently, where the real issue is adjudication of a right claimed for the first time and which is not admitted, the principle in M.R. Gupta will not apply. Similarly, where a person is regularised or absorbed on a particular post and the pay is fixed in the applicable pay scale but the employee wants the pay should be fixed at a higher level by taking note of previous service rendered on stop-gap/ad-hoc/contract basis, then the question involves adjudication of an issue as to whether such service was rendered and whether it should be counted. Though the ultimate consequence of grant of such relief may be re-fixation of pay, the real issue to be adjudicated is not re-fixation but an independent right, which was not claimed or asserted in time. Though the ultimate consequence of grant of such relief may be re-fixation of pay, the real issue to be adjudicated is not re-fixation but an independent right, which was not claimed or asserted in time. In those cases, if there is delay, the Court or Tribunal will be justified in refusing to adjudicate upon the right belatedly claimed and consequently there can no re-fixation of pay. For example, can an employee be permitted to claim a promotion to a post belatedly, say after a delay of 15 years, and contend that the delay will not matter as even if he succeeds he will only get a notional promotion and the financial benefits of promotion will be given only prospectively. Definitely not. The Supreme Court in State of Orissa and Others Vs. Shri Arun Kumar Patnaik and Others, , State of Orissa Vs. Pyarimohan Samantaray and Others, and Gain Singh Mann v. High Court of Gian Singh Mann Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Another, have held that in matters relating to seniority and promotion, inordinate delay would render the claim stale and even if successive representations were being submitted, the employee will not be entitled to relief. Be that as it may. We are therefore of the view that the claim was liable to be dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground of limitation having regard to Sub-section (2) read with Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The relief was also liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. Re. Point (ii): The Third Central Pay Commission in its report, had observed that the Second Pay Commission had recommended five scales of pay (i) 110-200; (ii) 150-240; (iii) 205-280; (iv) 335-425; (v) 450-575 in regard to Draughtsman. It also referred to considerable variations in the qualifications prescribed for the same grade in different departments. While referring to the general pattern, the Report observed that the third level is generally that of Rs. 205-280 where the recruitment is from among diplomaholders in engineering (three years after matriculation). The Petitioner wants to read this observation as indicating that the pay scale that was applicable to the three years diplomaholders in engineering entering service as draughtsmen was Rs. 205-280 and therefore he is entitled to the benefit of the pay scale of Rs. 205-280 instead of Rs. The Petitioner wants to read this observation as indicating that the pay scale that was applicable to the three years diplomaholders in engineering entering service as draughtsmen was Rs. 205-280 and therefore he is entitled to the benefit of the pay scale of Rs. 205-280 instead of Rs. 150-240 from the date of entry into service. The relevant portion of the Third Pay Commission Report (1973 Report at chapter 14, section IV relating 'Draughtsmen', para 76 Sub-para (iii) is extracted below: 76. There is considerable variation in the qualifications prescribed for the same grade in the different departments. However the general pattern appears to be as follows: (iii) the third level is generally that of Rs. 205-280; but it is Rs. 180-380 in the CPWD and Rs. 205-280 in the Railways. Direct recruitment to this level is from any among diplomaholders in Engineering (3 year course after matriculation)". 11. The Petitioner was appointed as draughtsman on 3-11-1971. The pay scale then applicable to him was Rs-.150-5-175-6-205-EB-7-240. By order dated 12-3-1972, his pay was fixed at Rs. 175/- in the said pay scale from the date of his initial appointment (3-11-1971). The Petitioner accepted the same and drew the pay in pursuance of it. He was also given several increments, revision of pay scale, promotion etc. There was never a whisper by the Petitioner that his initial scale of pay was erroneous. Twenty nine years later, he approached the Tribunal not on the basis that the Ordnance Factory Board or the Vehicle Factory had a pay scale of Rs. 205-280 applicable to draughtsman in the year 1971 when the Petitioner was appointed, but on a vague ground that the Third Central Pay Commission (1973) in its report, while referring to the general pre-existing position had stated that the pay scale level was Rs. 205-280 in Railways and Rs. 180-380 in CPWD where direct recruitment were made among diplomaholders in engineering to the post of Draughtsman as per the Second Pay Commission recommendations; and therefore, it should be inferred that such a pay scale was applicable even to the Vehicle Factory run by Ordnance Factory Board. When a Pay Commission recommends several scales of pay, it is for the concerned department to adopt what is suitable. When a Pay Commission recommends several scales of pay, it is for the concerned department to adopt what is suitable. The relevant portion of the Pay Commission Report relied on by the Petitioner itself clarifies that what is stated is the general pattern and that different pay scales and different qualifications have been applied and followed in pursuance of the Second Pay Commission's recommendations by different departments. It is pointed out that Railways had adopted the pay scale of Rs. 205-280 whereas the CPWD had adopted pay scale of Rs. 180-380 in pursuance of the recommendations of the Second Pay Commission, even in regard to the directly recruited draughtsman possessing diploma in engineering. Therefore the assumption that in all Central Government Services, the pay scale should be Rs 205-280 in regard to all directly recruited draughtsman with diplomas in Engineering is untenable and baseless. It is well settled that recommendations of Pay Commission are not binding on the Government and the authorities are not bound to adopt all the recommendations. It is open to the Government to accept or not to accept the recommendations or any part of it. In fact, the position in regard to the draughtsman employees in the factories under Ordnance Factory Board was clarified in the Annexure to the letter dated 14-11-1969 of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India addressed to the Director General, Ordnance Factories, (which has been produced by the Petitioner himself) as follows: Draughtsman trainees will be graded by the DGOF as suitable for appointment as Sr. Draughtsman in the scale of Rs. 205-7-240-8-280 OR as suitable for appointment as Draughtsman in the scale of Rs. 150-5-175-6-205-EB-7-240 OP unit for service, based on their overall performance during the entire period of training as well as in the gradation examination conducted for the purpose. A certain percentage of Draughtsman may be given a higher start upto Rs. 175 P.M. In deserving cases under the discretion of DGOF......... Thus, it is clear that persons with three years diploma, were being appointed in the units falling under Ordnance Factory Board by grading them either as Senior Draughtsman in the scale of Rs. 205-280 or as draughtsman in the scale of Rs. 150-240 with a higher start of Rs. 175/- . The Petitioner, admittedly, was appointed as a draughtsman and not as a senior draughtsman. He was also given the higher start at Rs. 175/- . 205-280 or as draughtsman in the scale of Rs. 150-240 with a higher start of Rs. 175/- . The Petitioner, admittedly, was appointed as a draughtsman and not as a senior draughtsman. He was also given the higher start at Rs. 175/- . There is nothing to show that the Ordnance Factory had accepted or applied the pay scale of Rs. 205-280 to Draughtsman. Petitioner is not therefore entitled to such Pay scale from the date of his appointment. The petition is, therefore, without merit. It is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed