JUDGMENT : Heard learned advocate Ms.Harshal Pandya for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sanjay Udhwani for the respondent State and learned advocate Ms.Sejal Mandavia for the respondent No.3 - Gujarat Maritime Board. 2. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to hold and declare that the petitioner is entitled to get second higher grade scale upon completion of 15 years of service from the date of receipt of the first higher grade in view of policy Resolution of the State Government. It is prayed to direct the authorities to grant the second higher grade of Rs.9300-34800, with grade pay Rs.4400, from the date it became payable with consequential benefits with interest. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk under the Gujarat Maritime Board- respondent No.1 herein on 19.2.1981 by order dated 2.2.1981. His pay scale was Rs.260-400. By order dated 2.1.1984, he was ordered to be continued on long term basis with effect from 9.3.1982. He thereafter was promoted as Senior Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.330-560 on 15.12.1983. The said pay scale was revised to Rs.950-1500 as per the 4th Pay Commission recommendation. 3.1 The petitioner failed to pass the pre-service training examination within the stipulated chances, therefore came to be demoted to his original post of Junior Clerk on 6.2.1984 in the original pay scale of Rs.260-400. Thereafter the petitioner was again promoted on 6.10.1988 as Senior Clerk on the supernumerary post in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2400. Entry in the service book was recorded to that effect. 3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that he completed 9 years of service in the same cadre in the same pay scale, counted from the date of repromotion as Senior Clerk. In view of completion of 9 years of service in the same cadre, as per the policy prevalent for the grant of higher pay scale, the petitioner was granted the first higher pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 with effect from 6.10.1997 of the next promotional post that is Head Clerk. This was done by order dated 26.12.1997. The pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 was revised to Rs.5000-8000 and again to Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4200 as per the 5th and 6th Pay Commission with effect from 1.1.1996 and 1.1.2006 respectively. This was done by order dated 26.12.1997. The pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 was revised to Rs.5000-8000 and again to Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4200 as per the 5th and 6th Pay Commission with effect from 1.1.1996 and 1.1.2006 respectively. 3.3 It may be stated that respondent Board started to recover the amount in the year 2004, which was received by the petitioner upon grant of deemed date for promotion. However, the said orders came to be set aside by this court, in the Special Civil Application No.1980 of 2005 and allied petitions filed by the petitioners, as per the judgment dated 24.12.2013, which became final. By office order dated 17.5.2014, the order of the court was implemented. 3.4 Once the employee receives first higher grade scale after completion of another 15 years, the employee becomes entitle to receive second higher grade scale as per the scheme for grant of higher grade scale as modified from Resolution dated 16.8.1994 to new scheme as per Resolution dated 2.7.2007. The Port and Transport Department of the State Government passed Resolution dated 17.12.2009 whereby the new scheme for higher grade scale envisages in Government Resolution dated 2.7.2007 was adopted. The higher scale benefit therein was granted to the employees of the Gujarat Maritime Board. The scheme of higher grade scale was further modified by Resolution dated 18.2.2011. In view of the modified policy, the Gujarat Maritime Board passed Circular dated 11.8.2011 instructing all the subordinate offices to prepare proposal in case of those who became entitled to receive higher grade to be sent to the Head Office. 3.5 It appears that correspondence ensued inter se between the Board and Government Department ending up with a clarification by Finance Department in letter dated 4.3.2008 that as per the clause 2.4(b) of the Resolution dated 2.7.2007, those who had received two promotions and one higher grade would be entitled to receive second higher grade scale upon completion of 15 years of service from the date of receipt of the first higher grade subject to fulfilling all other criteria. 3.6 It is the case and grievance of the petitioner that despite that petitioner was entitled to receive second higher grade upon completion of 15 years of service from the first higher grade, nothing was done at the end of the employer Board although the Circular obliged the Board to grant the same by forwarding necessary proposals. 3.6 It is the case and grievance of the petitioner that despite that petitioner was entitled to receive second higher grade upon completion of 15 years of service from the first higher grade, nothing was done at the end of the employer Board although the Circular obliged the Board to grant the same by forwarding necessary proposals. 4. The petition was contested by respondent Board by filing affidavit-in-reply in which it was inter alia highlighted that the petition suffered from delay and latches. It was contended that the prayer of the petitioner was to grant the benefit of second higher grade pay scale with effect from 2007. It was, further contended that the petitioner retired from 30.6.2013 and the petition was filed in the year 2022, therefore it was marred by gross delay of nine years. 4.1 The facts were admitted in the affidavit that the petitioner was appointed as Senior Clerk in the year 1983, got promotion on the post, in view of non-passing of the examination, he came to be demoted and when he passed the examination on 27.9.1986, he was again promoted on the post of Senior Clerk on 17.11.1995 and the promotion was granted with effect from 6.10.1988. The first higher grade was sanctioned upon completion of nine years in the year 1997, with effect from 6.10.1997. 5. Resolution dated 2.7.2007 inter alia provided in its Clause 4(b) that the employee who had received first higher pay scale at the completion of 9 years under Resolution dated 16.8.1994 would be entitled to receive the second higher grade scale under revised Resolution of 2007, upon completion of 15 years of service from the date of receipt of first higher pay scale under the scheme of 1994 Resolution. 5.1 On the admitted facts obtained, the first higher scale was granted to the petitioner on 6.10.1997, it was under the old scheme of Resolution dated 16.8.1984. The new scheme was introduced as per the Resolution dated 2.7.2007. Under the Clause 2.4(b) of 2007 scheme, the petitioner was entitled to receive the second higher pay scale once he completes in the same cadre 15 years of service. The petitioner was given promotion only once, those who fulfilled all the criteria to receive second higher scale at the end of 15 years reckoned from 6.10.1997, he is declared to be so entitled. The petitioner was given promotion only once, those who fulfilled all the criteria to receive second higher scale at the end of 15 years reckoned from 6.10.1997, he is declared to be so entitled. 5.2 The ground of delay and latches raised by the respondent authorities to refute the legitimate entitlement of the petitioner, which is devoid of substance, may be dealt with and disposed of at the outset. It is to be observed that the policy of granting the higher pay scale reflected in the Resolution dated 16.8.1994 and revised Resolution dated 2.7.2007 is by the authorities and obligation thereunder is cast on the respondents to extend the benefits to the eligible employees therein. When the employer takes a decision to grant some benefits, obligation would lie on the employer to extend and give such benefits as per the policy to the eligible employees who fulfill the criteria. An entitlement is to be given to the employee and the employee is not to be compelled to seek for it once it is the right of the employee to get the benefit. 5.3 And in the present case the circular dated 11.8.2011 of the Gujarat Maritime Board clearly contemplated that the proposals of eligible employees for grant of higher pay scale under the Scheme would be required to be processed and forwarded to the head office. 5.4 Even otherwise, the denial of second higher pay scale, which was the entitlement of the petitioner could be viewed as a recurring injury for the petitioner, therefore, the cause of action had been repeating itself to become continuing cause. The factor of delay would not come in way where the injury is of recurring nature. Therefore, the delay aspect in the present case may be appropriately viewed by applying the principles underlying the concept of continuing wrongs or successive wrongs as applied to the service law disputes. 5.5 In Bal Krishna S.P. Waghmare Vs. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan [ AIR 1959 SC 798 ], explaining in the context of Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1952 (old Section 23 Limitation Act, 1908), what amounts to continuing wrong. “It is the very essence of a continuing wrong that it is an act which creates a continuing source of injury and renders the doer of the act responsible and liable for the continuance of the said injury. “It is the very essence of a continuing wrong that it is an act which creates a continuing source of injury and renders the doer of the act responsible and liable for the continuance of the said injury. If the wrongful act causes an injury which is complete, there is no continuing wrong even though the damage resulting from the act may continue. If, however, a wrongful act is of such a character that the injury caused by it itself continues, then the act constitutes a continuing wrong. In this connection, it is necessary to draw a distinction between the injury caused by the wrongful act and what may be described as the effect of the said injury." (para 31) 5.6 In another decision in M.R.Gupta Vs. Union of India [ (1995) 5 SCC 628 ], the grievance of the appellant before the High Court, raised in the year 1989, was with regard to the initial pay fixation with effect from 1.8.1978. The High Court rejected the claim on the ground that it was raised after 11 years. The Apex Court applied the principle of recurring wrong. 5.6.1 Reversing the decision of the High Court, it was held and observed thus, “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 according 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. 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.........” (para 5) 5.7 The aforesaid propositions of law were reiterated by the High Court in Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh [ (2008) 8 SCC 648 ] in which it was observed to explain the continuing wrong that, “A ‘continuing wrong' refers to a single wrongful act which causes a continuing injury. `Recurring/successive wrongs' are those which occur periodically, each wrong giving rise to a distinct and separate cause of action.” It was further held that where a service related claim is based on continuing wrong, relief can be granted even there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with regards to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong or recurring wrong becomes a continuing source of injury. 5.8 The denial of higher pay scale benefit to a government servant or an employee when he is entitled to under the conditions and provisions of the Scheme for grant of higher pay scale, is a recurring injury to the government servant. It is a continuing wrong committed by a employer. 6. For the forgoing reasons and discussion, the petitioner is held entitled to receive second higher grade scale under the Resolution dated 2.7.2007 of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4400, upon completion of 15 years of service from the date of receipt of the first higher grade scale which was received in the year 6.10.1997. 6.1 All the consequential benefits therein and the arrears payable thereby shall be paid to the petitioner and fixation of pay and pension shall be accordingly done. 6.1 All the consequential benefits therein and the arrears payable thereby shall be paid to the petitioner and fixation of pay and pension shall be accordingly done. 6.2 The above directed compliance shall be ensured and done by the respondent authorities within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 6.3 If such time limit is not adhered to in conferring the benefits to the petitioner, the amount becoming payable shall be paid with the interest at the rate of 8% from the date of filing of the petition that is from 10.10.2022. 7. The petition is allowed as above.