To understand the referred rules in the contents of the circular issued by Finance Department under circular No. A/23 (08)-I-B-184, dated 18-02-2021, it is necessary to define a claim, becoming of due claim, arrears, and time-barred claim. First of all, let us define a claim. A claim is a demand for something that is due by virtue of right. Thus it is recognition of right. It should always be covered by sanction of a competent authority. When a demand for something is due by virtue of right and when sanction is issued to cover it (claim), it means “becoming of due claim”. Arrears are the payments not received by due date. Any arrears claim which is more than two years old is known as time-barred claim and not simply “arrears claim”.
Thus the date at which any order/sanction is issued by the Govt can be said as the date of becoming of due claim. This can be illustrated by an example here:
Suppose a Govt servant has been regularised in some pay scale w.e.f. 01-04-2014 and regularisation orders have been issued on 23-04-2020 and the claim is submitted to treasury on 10-03-2021. This means that the claim of the arrears pertaining to period w.e.f 01-04-2014 to 28-02-2021 has been preferred within two years of becoming due and cannot be declared as time-barred claim.
Many of our colleagues are confused in dealing with the Rules referred in the said circular issued by Finance Department and are creating a hornet’s nest over the claimants. Let them contradistinguish the words “preferring of claim” and “period pertaining to the claim”. By decoupling the same, the two components shall perform their independent role and remain completely autonomous and unrelated to each other, which is the basic requisite for the application of the said rules.
Any arrears claim which is more than two years old is known as time-barred claim and not simply “arrears claim”. This means the claim after the period of two years of its becoming due. Such claims require proper sanction of competent authority and prior concurrence of Finance Department.
Great confusion is prevalent among some DDOs/Treasury officers because alertness and keen observation is not being exercised towards the “date of preferring of claim” and “the period for which the claim pertains”. Some Treasury officers are at sixes and sevens and conveying wrong messages on whether consequential benefits be given in cases where orders regarding release of any grade/regularisation of any officer/official are silent. There is no denying the fact that when the word “notionally” is not mentioned in the grade release/regularisation order, then how can it be treated as notional. The pay arrears in such cases are to be billed as from the date of effect of grade release/regularisation orders.
In a DPC meeting held for granting in-situ promotions, meticulous care is required to be taken to decide whether the in-situ promotion is to be granted either “notionally” or “monetarily”. In such cases the cause of delay needs to be ascertained, whether cause of delay is attributed to Govt servant or due to administrative lapse. Responsibility needs to be fixed for late submission of such cases so that the Govt servant can be saved from any monetary loss.

[email protected]

Mohammad Hussain Khan