ORDER : The petitioner was appointed as Conductor on 10.09.1982 in the respondent-Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC) in the pay scale of Rs.400-600/-. The revision of pay scale was carried out w.e.f. 01.01.1986. After the revision of pay scales in the year 1986, the petitioner was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.950-1800/-. The pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.1000/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.1986 with next date of increment as 01.09.1986. A fire broke out in the regional office of the respondents at Dhalli in the year 1989. A lot of record of the respondent-Corporation was gutted in the fire including the service record of the petitioner. 2. Since the service record of the petitioner was gutted in fire, the respondent-Corporation in an attempt to reconstruct the record, asked the petitioner to furnish an affidavit with respect to his service details including his basic pay and allowances etc. The affidavit as directed by the respondents, was furnished by the petitioner on 21.06.1990. Following details were given by him in the affidavit:- “I, Gurcharan Singh Son of Shri Bilbier Singh resident of village Kanganwal P.O. Palsi, Teh. Nalagarh Distt. Solan. 1. That My date of birth is 10.6.61. 2. That my educational qualification is as under:- (i) Matric. 3. That my date of appointment in HRTC is 10.9.82. 4. That my date of appointment in the different post/ grade chronological is as under. (i) Cond. w.e.f. 10.9.82. 5. That I have got medically examined at the time of entering in service. 6. That the following leave was due on 19.12.89 in my credit:- (i) Earned Leave 150 days. (ii) H.A.P. Leave 100 days. 7. That I never remained under suspension during my entire service upto 19.12.89. 8. That during the period from the date of appointment upto 19.12.89 no penalty was/is in operation against me. 9. That no chargesheet is pending against me. 10. That my basic pay as on 10.12.89 is Rs.1000/-. 1025/- according to the revised pay scale and date of next increment is 1.9.89 because I was on medical leave and the increment for the year 1.9.89 not be allowed to me and next date of increment is 1.9.90. 11. That I belong to open category. 12. That Sh. Bhagwan Dutt conductor presently working in HRTC Dhalli Unit was my batch mate. 13. 11. That I belong to open category. 12. That Sh. Bhagwan Dutt conductor presently working in HRTC Dhalli Unit was my batch mate. 13. That I have not availed L.T.C. in my entire service.” Since in the above affidavit, the petitioner submitted that his basic pay as on 10.12.1989 was at Rs.1025/-, therefore, the respondents accordingly worked out his subsequent pay and annual increments. Relevant portion of pay fixation chart of the petitioner prepared by the respondent-Corporation on the basis of above affidavit furnished by him is as under:- (Extracted from Annexure R-1) “Date Pay Remarks 10.09.82 400 New appointment. 18.12.89 1025 As per affidavit submitted. 17.05.90 1050 Annual increment deferred due to leave. 01.09.90 1075 Annual increment. 01.09.91 1100 Annual increment. 01.09.92 1125 Annual increment.” There is no dispute qua the above facts between the parties. 3. The case put forth by the petitioner in the instant petition is that during the year 2014, he came across an office order dated nil (Annexure A-1), whereunder on revision of pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1986, his pay as on 01.01.1986 was fixed at Rs.1000/- in the pay scale of Rs.950-1800/-. Petitioner’s date of increment falls on 1st September of the year. Therefore, his pay as on 01.09.1986 was to be fixed at Rs.1025/- after allowing the annual increment due to him. In this way, as on 01.09.1987, his pay would be Rs.1050/-. Thereafter, as on 01.09.1988, his pay would be Rs.1075/-, whereas, the respondents have fixed his basic pay at Rs.1025/- as on 18.12.1989. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the office order (Annexure A-1) was submitted by the petitioner to the respondents alongwith a detailed representation in this regard on 27.11.2014. However, the respondents instead of correctly fixing the pay of the petitioner, rejected his representation on 04.11.2015 on the ground of having been presented at a belated stage. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has preferred instant petition on 20.12.2015 for the following substantive reliefs:- “(a) That the impugned order dated 4.11.2015 (Annexure A-4) may kindly be quashed and set aside, being wrong and against the records of the present case. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has preferred instant petition on 20.12.2015 for the following substantive reliefs:- “(a) That the impugned order dated 4.11.2015 (Annexure A-4) may kindly be quashed and set aside, being wrong and against the records of the present case. (b) That the respondents may kindly be directed to re-fix the pay of the applicant from the year 1989 and revision of the pay scale thereafter from time to time and grant him all consequential benefits accordingly, keeping in view the (Annexure A-1).” In their reply, the respondents have not disputed that petitioner’s service record was gutted in fire during the year 1989 and that his service book was reconstructed by the respondents on the basis of affidavit furnished by the petitioner. The stand taken by the respondents for opposing the prayers made by the petitioner is that the pay of the petitioner was fixed as per the affidavit furnished by him on 21.06.1990. The respondents have highlighted that since in his affidavit, the petitioner had himself stated that he was getting basic pay of Rs.1025/- as on 10.12.1989, therefore, his pay was fixed at Rs.1025/- w.e.f. 18.12.1989 onwards. Another argument raised by the respondents is that the claim of the petitioner is barred by limitation as he had represented to the respondents for re-fixation of his pay after about 33 years. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the case record, in my considered opinion, this petition deserves to be allowed for the following reasons:- 4(i). It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed as Conductor on 10.09.1982 at Dhalli Unit of the respondents. Respondents have also admitted in their reply filed to the petition that the basic pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.1000/- per month as on 01.01.1986 in the pay scale of Rs.950-1800/-. 4(ii). The petitioner has claimed in the petition that the date of his increment falls on 1st September of every year. The pay fixation chart of the petitioner appended with the reply of the respondents as Annexure R-1 reflects it to be a correct position. The petitioner therein has been allowed increment on 1st September of each year. 4(iii). The petitioner has placed on record copy of his pay fixation order at Annexure A-1, which he statedly came across during the year 2014. The petitioner therein has been allowed increment on 1st September of each year. 4(iii). The petitioner has placed on record copy of his pay fixation order at Annexure A-1, which he statedly came across during the year 2014. The respondents in their reply have not specifically denied this annexure. According to this annexure, pay of the petitioner had already been fixed at Rs.1000/- as on 01.01.1986 in the revised pay scale of Rs.950-1800/-. With annual increment of Rs.25/-, his pay as on 01.09.1986 would be Rs.1025/-, whereas, in the affidavit furnished by the petitioner to the respondents, he stated his pay at Rs.1025/- as on 10.12.1989. This was obviously incorrect factual submission in the affidavit. The respondents on the basis of petitioner’s incorrect affidavit, fixed his basic pay at Rs.1025/- as on 18.12.1989. The error thus crept in and kept on recurring. The error continued till petitioner’s retirement. 4(iv). Vide order dated 17.11.2021 passed in the instant petition, the respondents were directed to seek instructions in respect of veracity of office order at Annexure A-1 by means of any contemporaneous record available with them. Pursuant thereto, the respondents filed a supplementary affidavit dated 30.11.2021. In this affidavit, it has been stated that one Sh. Hem Singh S/o Sukh Ram was also appointed as Conductor alongwith the petitioner on 10.09.1982 at HRTC Dhalli Unit. The respondents have appended the pay fixation chart of said Sh. Hem Singh, Conductor. A perusal of this chart shows that Sh. Hem Singh was also getting the revised pay scale of Rs.950-1800/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986 with 1st September of the year as his next date of increment. Relevant extract from this chart pertaining to Sh. The respondents have appended the pay fixation chart of said Sh. Hem Singh, Conductor. A perusal of this chart shows that Sh. Hem Singh was also getting the revised pay scale of Rs.950-1800/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986 with 1st September of the year as his next date of increment. Relevant extract from this chart pertaining to Sh. Hem Singh is extracted hereinafter:- (Extracted from Annexure R1-A) “Pay as on 10.09.82 Rs.400/ Fixed Pay as on 01.09.83 Rs.400/ Effect dt 20.12.82 Pay as on 01.09.84 Rs.400/ Effect dt 20.12.82 Pay as on 01.09.85 Rs.420/ Restored inc effect dt 20.12.82 (2) Effect dt 27.5.83 with Cumulative Scale Revised w.e.f. 01.01.1986 (Rs.950-1800) Pay as on 01.01.86 Rs.1000/ Fixed Pay as on 01.09.86 Rs.1000/ Effect dt 27.5.83 with cumulative Pay as on 01.9.87 Rs.1000/ Effect dt 08.6.84 for a period of one year Pay as on 01.09.88 Rs.1025/ Restored inc effect dt 08.6.84 after one year (2) Effect dt 10.2.86 for a period of six month Pay as on 01.03.89 Rs.1050/ Restored inc effect dt 10.2.86 after six month Pay as on 01.9.89 Rs.1075/ A.I Pay as on 01.9.90 Rs.1100/ A.I Pay as on 10.9.90 Rs.1125/ 8 years ACP Allowed Pay as on 01.9.91 Rs.1125/ Effect dt 29.7.91 for a period of six month Pay as on 01.3.92 Rs.1150/ Restored inc effect dt 29.7.91 after six month Pay as on 01.09.92 Rs.1175/ A.I” Though the above chart gives an inference that the said Sh. Hem Singh was imposed some penalty, because of which, probably his increments were stopped in the interregnum, nonetheless, the fact remains that on 01.01.1986, the pay of said Sh. Hem Singh was fixed at Rs.1000/- in the revised pay scale of Rs.950-1800/- with next date of increment as 01.09.1986. This leads credence to the petitioner’s assertion that his pay as on 01.01.1986 was Rs.1000/- and would been Rs.1025/- as on 01.09.1986. 4(v). Hem Singh was fixed at Rs.1000/- in the revised pay scale of Rs.950-1800/- with next date of increment as 01.09.1986. This leads credence to the petitioner’s assertion that his pay as on 01.01.1986 was Rs.1000/- and would been Rs.1025/- as on 01.09.1986. 4(v). Insofar as the question of delay on part of the petitioner in seeking correct fixation of his pay is concerned, it will be appropriate to refer to (1995) 5 SCC 628 , titled M.R. Gupta Versus Union of India and others, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that grievance of pay fixation, being not in accordance with the rules, is an assertion of a continuing wrong against an employee, giving rise to recurring cause of action each time the employee is paid salary, which is not computed in accordance with the rules. It was further held that if an employee’s claim is found correct on merits, he would be entitled to be paid accordingly to the properly fixed pay scale in the future and the question of limitation would arise for recovery of the arrears for the past period. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is as under:- “5. Having heard both sides, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has missed the real point and overlooked the crux of the matter. The appellant’s grievance that his pay fixation was not in accordance with the 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 when 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 accordingly to the properly fixed pay scale in the future and the question of limitation would arise for recovery of the arrears for the past period. It is no doubt true that if the appellant’s claim is found correct on merits, he would be entitled to be paid accordingly to the properly fixed pay scale in the future and the question of limitation would arise for recovery of the 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 a recurring cause of action.” The judgment in M.R. Gupta’s case, supra, has been followed in (2008) 8 SCC 648 , titled Union of India and others Versus Tarsem Singh, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court summarized the law by holding that a belated service related claim will normally be rejected on the ground of delay and laches or limitation, however, one of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong, which does not affect settled rights of third parties. It was further held that if the issue relates to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under:- “7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. In so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period, the principles relating to recurring/ successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. 8. In this case, the delay of 16 years would affect the consequential claim for arrears. The High Court was not justified in directing payment of arrears relating to 16 years, and that too with interest. It ought to have restricted the relief relating to arrears to only three years before the date of writ petition, or from the date of demand to date of writ petition, whichever was lesser. It ought not to have granted interest on arrears in such circumstances.” To the similar effect is the judgment in (2010) 12 SCC 538 , titled State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Yogendra Shrivastava, wherein it was held as under:- “18. We cannot agree. It ought not to have granted interest on arrears in such circumstances.” To the similar effect is the judgment in (2010) 12 SCC 538 , titled State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Yogendra Shrivastava, wherein it was held as under:- “18. We cannot agree. Where the issue relates to payment or fixation of salary or any allowance, the challenge is not barred by limitation or the doctrine of laches, as the denial of benefit occurs every month when the salary is paid, thereby giving rise to a fresh cause of action, based on continuing wrong. Though the lesser payment may be a consequence of the error that was committed at the time of appointment, the claim for a higher allowance in accordance with the Rules (prospectively from the date of application) cannot be rejected merely because it arises from a wrong fixation made several years prior to the claim for correct payment. But in respect of grant of consequential relief of recovery of arrears for the past period, the principle relating to recurring and successive wrongs would apply. Therefore the consequential relief of payment of arrears will have to be restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of the original application. (See: M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India and Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh).” In the facts of instant case, it has been established on record that the pay of the petitioner has been incorrectly fixed by the respondents. Though this incorrect fixation of pay was on the basis of affidavit furnished by the petitioner himself on 21.06.1990, however, the fact remains that it was the responsibility of the respondent-Corporation to have maintained the service record of the petitioner. The service book of the petitioner had admittedly been gutted in fire during the year 1989. It was on the asking of the respondent-Corporation that the petitioner furnished his affidavit, wherein he gave incorrect particulars with respect to the pay drawn by him. The respondents have not specifically disputed the office order at Annexure A-1, which reflects petitioner’s correct pay being drawn by him as on 01.01.1986. In fact, in their supplementary affidavit, the respondents have also given the pay fixation chart of one Sh. Hem Singh, who was appointed as Conductor alongwith the petitioner on the same date and fixed in the same pay scale. In fact, in their supplementary affidavit, the respondents have also given the pay fixation chart of one Sh. Hem Singh, who was appointed as Conductor alongwith the petitioner on the same date and fixed in the same pay scale. A comparison of the pay fixation charts of the petitioner and Sh. Hem Singh reveals that petitioner’s pay had been incorrectly fixed to his disadvantage on the basis of incorrect affidavit filed by him. Throughout his service, the petitioner had been paid less pay than what was payable to him in law in accordance with Annexure A-1. The petitioner has already retired from service on 30.06.2019. He raised the dispute regarding his incorrect fixation of pay at the fag end of his service career. Instant petition was filed by him on 31.12.2015. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the legal position extracted earlier, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to work out the notional pay of the petitioner in terms of Annexure A-1, in accordance with law, w.e.f. 01.01.1986. The petitioner shall not be entitled to any actual monetary benefit on account of revised fixation of his pay in terms of this judgment till the date he retired. However, all retiral benefits, i.e. Gratuity, Leave Encashment, Pension etc., shall be admissible to him on actual basis on the basis of notional re-fixation of his pay. The respondents are directed to carry out this entire exercise and pay actual monetary benefits (retiral) to the petitioner w.e.f. 30.06.2019 in terms of this judgment, within a period of six weeks from today. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.