Order : (Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.) 1. The petitioner who is working as Testing Assistant Grade II with the Chhattisgarh Power Distribution Company has filed the present writ petition assailing rejection of the claim of the petitioner for revised pay scale on 24.04.2019 passed by respondent No. 4/ Dy. General Manager (H.R.), CSPDCL. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is working as Testing Assistant with the respondent and after implementation of The Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Co. Ltd Class-III & IV Employees (Revision of Pay) Rules 2016 an option was sought from the employees on 18.08.2017 w.e.f 01.04.2016. The Class III & IV employees had to submit their option form before 31.08.2017. The petitioner has submitted option form on 26.02.2018 for grant of revised pay scale which was returned back to the petitioner as it was submitted after 31.08.2017. Again the respondents extended the date for submission of option form for revised pay scale up to 23.09.2017 and further extended to 15.11.2017. The petitioner again submitted his option form on 02.09.2018 which has been again returned back to the petitioner vide impugned memo dated 24.04.2019 as the form was submitted beyond the extended date of 15.11.2017. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is illegal as per Rules of 2016 framed by the respondents no date has been prescribed for submission of option form. The respondents according to their convenience issued date for submission of option form which has no statutory force. He would further submit that fixation of pay is a continued cause of action therefore, delay in submission of option form does not disentitle the petitioner to get the benefit of revision of pay scale and would pray for allowing the petition. 4. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent vehemently objected the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the petitioner was granted ample opportunity to submit his option form but in all occasion he has submitted his option form after the extended dates, therefore, he is not entitled to get revised pay scale and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. From bare perusal of the Revision Rules 2016 which is annexed by the respondent along with their return it does not provide for any date for filling the option form. These Rules are silent and what should be the date of submission of option form, therefore, the respondents to carry out the implementation of the rules have issued various instructions which cannot replace the rules framed by them. Thus, the delay in submission of option form does not disentitle the petitioner to get the benefit of revision pay rule. Even otherwise the fixation of pay is a continued cause of action as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 9 SCC 648 wherein in paragraph 4 to 6 it is held as under: 4. The principles underlying continuing wrongs and recurring/ successive wrongs have been applied to service law disputes. 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. This Court in Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan - [ AIR 1959 SC 798 ], explained the concept of continuing wrong (in the context of Section 23 of the Limitation Act, 1908 corresponding to Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963) : “31. …. 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." 5. 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." 5. In M. R. Gupta v. Union of India [ 1995 (5) SCC 628 ], the appellant approached the High Court in 1989 with a grievance in regard to his initial pay fixation with effect from 1.8.1978. The claim was rejected as it was raised after 11 years. This Court applied the principles of continuing wrong and recurring wrongs and reversed the decision. This Court held : “5. … 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. 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........." 6. 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........." 6. In Shiv Dass v. Union of India- 2007 (9) SCC 274 , this Court held: “8. … The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction. 10. In the case of pension the cause of action actually continues from month to month. That, however, cannot be a ground to overlook delay in filing the petition. ... If petition is filed beyond a reasonable period say three years normally the Court would reject the same or restrict the relief which could be granted to a reasonable period of about three years." 7. Again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Yogendra Shrivastava { (2010) 12 SCC 538 } has 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. 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. 8. Thus, it is quite vivid that in a continued cause of action the delay in taking action does not disentitle the petitioner to claim the benefits of revision of pay rules and also considering the fact that in absence of any cut off date prescribed in the Rules, 2016 the respondents by issuing instruction replace the rule, accordingly the impugned memo dated 24.04.2019 deserves to be and it is hereby quashed. 9. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to submit option form afresh before the respondent authorities which shall be acted upon and benefits of revision of pay Rules, 2016 shall be given to the petitioner if there is no other impediment in granting such benefits. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed.