K R RAJAN vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 30 October 2026

O R D E R

Justice K. Haripal, Judicial Member Applicant is a former Telecom Mechanic in the BSNL. He had started service in the Telecom Department on 01.10.1983. According to

Deepa S

the applicant, he was promoted as Telecom Mechanic in 2000. In the second pay revision, his pay has been fixed at Rs.14970/- in the revised pay scale of Rs.10900-20400. Referring to Annexure-A3 Non-Executive Promotion Policy, he said that he ought to have been granted first promotion in 2004 and second promotion after seven years of the first promotion. But, he was not given such upgradations due to reasons best known to the respondents. In the policy it was stipulated that if an option is not exercised to continue in the existing time bound promotion scheme, it would be construed that the concerned non-executive has opted for the Non-Executive Promotion Policy and accordingly, he should be governed by the provisions of the policy.

2. It is submitted that even though Annexure-A3 was promulgated in 2010, it was effective from 01.10.2000, the date on which BSNL was formed. The first upgradation in the Non-Executive Promotion Policy of absorbed employees was to be done in 2004 and the second upgradation in the year 2011, after seven years of the first upgradation. As per clause 6.4 of the Scheme, any upgradation in pay scale availed by a non-executive employee after 01.10.2000 and before notification of the

Deepa S

new policy will be treated as the first upgradation.

3. As per the Annexure-A3 policy, unless an option is exercised to continue in the existing promotion policy prior to 01.10.2000, the new promotion policy will automatically and uniformly be applied to all non- executive employees in the BSNL. If no option is exercised, it would be concluded that the non-executive has opted for the present promotion policy. It is also stipulated that all the concessions given by the BSNL to non-executives in relation to OTBP/BCR/Grade-IV/ACP etc. after 01.10.2000 stand withdrawn with immediate effect.

4. Further it is submitted that the applicant was given BCR fixation on 03.10.2009, prior to the promulgation of Annexure-A3 scheme. So, based on Annexure-A3 the BCR fixation given to the applicant on 03.10.2009 is liable to be withdrawn and the applicant has to be given the first upgradation notionally on 01.10.2004 on completion of four years of service and the second upgradation in the year 2011. The above stated method has been adopted while fixing the pay of his colleagues. The pay fixation and non-implementation of the NEPP scheme in the case of the applicant is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be reconsidered.

Deepa S

5. Referring to Annexure-A4 pay slip for the month of November 2014, the year on which he had retired shows that basic pay is Rs.20050/- with an over payment of Rs.25924/-, whereas his colleague, Sri.Sivan T.K., as seen in Annexure-A5 was getting basis pay of Rs.20880/- in January 2014, which is arbitrary and illegal.

6. Since the applicant was not granted benefits in terms of Annexure-A3 NEPP scheme, he submitted Annexure-A6 representation which has been rejected through Annexure-A1 a communication dated 19.01.2015, which is the immediate provocation in moving the O.A. So, he has approached the Tribunal seeking the following reliefs: “1. To call for the records leading to Annexure A1 communication dated 18.03.2014 (sic) and set aside the same.

2. Declare that the applicant is entitled for re-fixation of his pay as per Annexure A3, NEPP scheme with 1st up-gradation in the year 2004 and 2nd up-gradation in the year 2011 and direct to give stepping up of the pay at par with the colleague namely Sivan T.K. as evidenced by Annexure A5 and issue an order directing the respondents to disburse the arrears of salary and other benefits within a time limit fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.”

7. According to the applicant, Annexure-A1 is illegal, that he has a fundamental right for stepping up his pay at par with his colleagues. The

Deepa S

right of an employee to have his pay fixed according to the relevant scheme, which is more beneficial is an accepted right in the service and such a right cannot be denied without any express request/option from the side of the applicant. The applicant had never submitted an option to retain BCR given to him as his first upgradation. In fact the respondents, based on the mandatory direction contained in Annexure-A3 ought to have withdrawn BCR fixation given in the year 2009 and proper upgradation had to be given to the applicant. Annexure-A3 scheme contemplates only to treat one upgradation in between 2000-2008 as the first upgradation under the scheme and the second upgradation has to be given based on the NEPP scheme only. Accordingly, the version of the respondents that the BCR fixation given in the year 2009 is treated as the first upgradation is beyond the competence of the respondents and is illegal. He has also reiterated that his colleague Sri.Sivan is getting higher pay than him and therefore he is entitled to get upgradation of the scale; the contention that there is over payment also is illegal. According to the applicant, all the fixations based upon promotions to the post of Telecom Mechanic or under the NEPP scheme are under FR 22(1)(a)(1) and hence the anomaly happened to be

Deepa S

occurred due to the non-implementation of Annexure-A3 scheme, the applicant is entitled for stepping up his pay at par with his junior as settled by the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court and the Apex Court.

8. Respondents filed reply statement stating that the applicant had started as Lineman on 01.10.1983. He was given OTBP on 02.10.1999 and he became Telephone Mechanic on 20.02.2002. He got BCR on 03.10.2009 and retired from service on 30.11.2014. Annexure-R2(a) has been relied on to say that he was given post based promotion as Telecom Mechanic on 20.02.2002 and not in 2000 as claimed by the applicant. Similarly, Annexure-R2(b) is the option given by the applicant on 16.10.2010 opting for continuation in the existing OTBP/BCR/Grade-IV/ACP scheme. In other words, he has given the option not to switch over to the Annexure-A3 scheme.

9. According to the respondents, promotion of the applicant as Telecom Mechanic on 20.02.2002 is a post based promotion and if he had opted for NEPP the promotion on 20.02.2002, will be considered as first upgradation, but the applicant has not opted for NEPP. He was promoted under the OTBP scheme on 02.10.1999 from the scale of pay of Rs.2750-

Deepa S

4900, which was converted to IDA scale of Rs.4720-6970 on 01.10.2000. He was promoted as Telecom Mechanic in the scale of Rs.5700-8100 by granting one advance increment. BCR was granted to him on 03.10.2009 to the scale of Rs.6550-9320, replacement scale being Rs.12520-23440, since he opted to continue in the erstwhile promotion policy, OTBP/BCR/ACP etc. he was not brought to NEPP scheme. There was no further scope for promotion after 03.10.2009 granting of BCR promotion and thus on his retirement on 03.11.2014 he was not entitled to get any relief.

10. Further it is submitted that on his BCR promotion on 03.10.2009 his pay was fixed at Rs. 7475/- in the scale of 6550-9325 (Revised Rs. 16870/- in the scale of 12520-23440), thereby getting the benefit of one increment, as per para 3.3 of II PRC Order dated 7/5/2010. But later under Annexure-R2(d) a clarification was issued stipulating that in the case of those promotions under FR 22(1)a(ii), not involving higher responsibility, the pay of the promotees should be placed in the minimum, if the existing pay is less than the minimum of the scale of new post and if the existing pay is higher than the minimum of the higher scale the pay will simply be placed in the new pay scale and will continue to draw the existing

Deepa S

pay without any change in the date of the next increment. The BCR pay fixation of TMs was done according to FR 22(1)a(ii). As a result, the pay of the applicant was revised on 13.6.2012 by withdrawing one increment already given on 03.10.2009 and his pay was re-fixed at Rs.16370/-, resulting in reduction of pay. However, as seen in Annexure-R2(f) the recovery of over payment was kept in abeyance, but when he retired from service on 30.11.2014 such an amount was recovered from his terminal benefits since the chances of recovery of the dues was not possible after retirement.

11. Referring to Annexure-R2(g) option form-II submitted by Sri.T.K.Sivan it is submitted that his pay was fixed under the NEPP scheme and therefore, it is not comparable with that of the applicant.

12. It is submitted that subsequently, Annexure-R2(h) communication was issued by the Corporate Office of the BSNL granting one more opportunity to give fresh options, that was duly communicated, but revised option was not submitted by the applicant within the stipulated time. Thus the O.A. is sought to be dismissed.

13. The applicant filed a rejoinder. Now he accepts that he was

Deepa S

promoted as Telecom Mechanic on 20.02.2002. He has also not denied Annexure-R2(b) option submitted by him. But, according to him, Annexure- R2(b) was submitted on 16.10.2010 without evaluating the benefits out of the new promotion policy. In fact, two option forms were provided at the point of time and the intention of the applicant was to accept the promotion as Telecom Mechanic on 20.02.2002 as first upgradation and to forgo the BCR fixation given on 03.10.2009 in the order to get the second upgradation as per the NEPP scheme. The respondents are also duty bound to ensure the beneficial pay fixation while including an employee in the promotion policy. Accordingly, Annexure-R2(b) option was erroneous and was made without properly understanding and appreciating the benefit under the new scheme. The pay of the applicant was revised and reduced as per Annexure-R2(d) and refixed at Rs.16370/- in the pay scale of Rs.12520-23440 instead of Rs.16870/- as on 03.10.2009 is also illegal and unsustainable.

14. According to him, till the date of retirement he had never come across a fresh opportunity made available to submit revised option as contended by the respondents. As a matter of fact, Annexure-R2(h)

Deepa S

dated 28.09.2011 giving opportunity to exercise fresh option to get covered under the NEPP by changing the earlier option had not been properly intimated to the applicant as well as to the similarly placed persons. Now, to the knowledge of the applicant, yet another request for giving one more opportunity to exercise revised option, is under the consideration of the Circle Office.

15. The applicant being a retired employee may not be permitted to exercise a revised option. However, there is difference in the pay and pension of the applicant with that of the juniors identified by the applicant will remain and continue till life time. Therefore, in the interest of justice it is just and necessary to treat that the applicant had exercised the option to change the NEPP promotion policy and his pay may be revised and fixed in accordance NEPP Scheme at least notionally and he wants appropriate directions to the respondents to revise the pensionary benefits.

16. This is the second time that the O.A. is coming up for consideration by this Tribunal. Earlier, by order dated 07.07.2016 the O.A. was allowed on the lines of the order passed by this Tribunal in

Deepa S

O.A.1056/2014 on the following lines: “6. Heard the counsel for applicants and respondents and examined the material placed on record. In a similar OA 1056/2014 wherein judgment was delivered on 17/6/2016, the Tribunal had observed as follows:- "4. Respondents have produced Annexure R-2 clarification issued by the BSNL which states as follows: "In this regard, kind attention is invited to para 5.1 of this office letter No.27-7/2008-TE-II dated 23.3.2010, which provides for the exercise of option under the NEPP Scheme. The said para, inter-alia, states that "an individual non-executive employee, may, however, opt to remain out of the purview of this scheme to continue in his erstwhile time bound promotion scheme. Such option to remain out of the purview of this policy will have to be exercised within one month from the date the circle authority/SSA Head asks for such option at the time of implementation of the policy with reference to the first review date. If option is not exercised within the stipulated time period, it would be construed as if the concerned Non-Executive has opted for this Non- Executive Promotion Policy and accordingly he/she will be governed by the provisions of the Non-

Deepa S

Executive Promotion Policy. This provision remains unchanged vide para 3 of this office letter No.27- 7/2008-TE-II (upgradation) dated 11.9.2012 vide which new NE-12 IDA scale of Rs.16390-33830/- has been introduced with effect from 22.2.2012. It, therefore, follows that if option is not exercised within the stipulated time period, it has to be construed as if the concerned non-executive has opted for NE-12 IDA pay scale introduced vide this office letter dated 11.9.2012, quoted above."

5. Thus the applicants could have come under NEPP Scheme had they not exercised the option to remain in the erstwhile OTBP Scheme. However, the applicants had submitted an option on 18.10.2010 to treat their BCR promotions on 25.7.2007 (1st applicant) and 1.8.2007 (2nd applicant) as their first financial upgradation under NEPP, without realising that the two upgradations on completion of 4 years of service and 7 years of service may have been more beneficial. Having committed the error of judgment in exercising the more beneficial option, the applicants are before us for stepping up their pay with that of their juniors Balachandran Pillai

and Madhusoodanan Nair P.R. The applicants draw our attention to para 5 of the implementation order of NEPP dated 23.3.2010 wherein the withdrawal of

Deepa S

concession to Non-Executives in relation to OTBP after 1.10.2000 stands withdrawn with immediate effect. The para is reproduced below:

5. Option to continue in erstwhile time bound promotion schemes: 5.1 All the Non-Executive employees will automatically and uniformly be covered by this promotion policy. Existing OTBP/BCR/Grade IV/ACP policy will cease to exist from the date of notification of this Non-Executive Promotion Policy, as a general measure. An individual non-executive employee may, however, opt to remain out of the purview of this scheme to continue in his erstwhile time bound promotion scheme. Such option to remain out of the purview of this policy will have to be exercised within one month from the date the circle authority/SSA Head asks for such option at the time of implementation of the policy with reference to the first review date. If option is not exercised within the stipulated time period, it would be construed as if the concerned Non-Executive has opted for this Non- Executive Promotion Policy and accordingly he/she will be governed by the provisions of the Non- Executive Promotion Policy. The option form is annexed herewith. 5.2 The promotion of such person who opts to

Deepa S

continue in his/her erstwhile time bound promotion scheme viz. OTBP/BCR/Grade-IV/ACP etc. will be governed by the provisions of such schemes as existed on 1.10.2000 ie. the date on which BSNL was formed, unless any change is specifically ordered or agreed to by the BSNL Management after issue of this policy. All the concessions given by BSNL to Non- Executives in relation to OTBP/BCR/Grade-IV/ACP etc. after 1.10.2000 stands withdrawn with immediate effect. However, the cases settled prior to the issue of this order, need not be reopened unless the employee himself opts for this Non-Executive Promotion Policy. (emphasis provided)

6. The para 5.1 clearly states, that if option is not exercised within stipulated time period, it would be construed that official has opted for NEPP and will be governed by the provisions of NEPP. Applicant has exercised the option and hence this provision is not applicable. A second opportunity to exercise option was provided, to opt out of the purview of this scheme, and continue in the erstwhile OTBP Scheme. An option form was also annexed. Applicants did not avail this opportunity also. The applicants had exercised option vide option form dated 18.10.2010 for BCR and, therefore, their consideration for NEPP was closed. However, the statement in para 5.2 of

Deepa S

respondent O.M that all concessions given by BSNL to Non-Executives in relation to OTBP/BCR/Grade- IV/ACP etc. after 1.10.2000 stands withdrawn with immediate effect, is confusing as the applicants received BCR on 25.7.2007 and 1.8.2007 and hence if it stood withdrawn then the BCR benefits should have been replaced with some other benefit, namely NEPP in the 4th year. Further if the benefit was withdrawn why was an option form for option for BCR annexed as indicated in para 5.1 above. The respondents appear to be confused about the benefit proposed to be extended to its employees or failed to word their proposal properly. Applicants would like to draw the benefit of the statement in para 5.2 above that all concessions given by BSNL to Non-Executives in relation to OTBP/BCR/Grade IV/ACP etc. after 1.10.2000 stands withdrawn with immediate effect and hence argue that they are eligible for the benefits under NEPP Scheme. As per this statement the BCR benefit given to applicants on 25.7.2007 and 1.8.2007 stood withdrawn despite their exercising an option for BCR. If BCR benefits stood withdrawn applicants become eligible for NEPP financial upgradation on completion of 4 and 11 years. Hence the prayer of the applicants to fix their pay under NEPP Scheme is allowed. However, arrears will be

Deepa S

restricted to three years prior to the date of filing of this O.A as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 765). No order as to costs.

7. Applicants in the present OAs are also eligible for similar relief as given to applicants in OA 1056/14. The two OAs are allowed accordingly.

17. Against the said decision the respondents moved in judicial review and OP(CAT) 79/2017 was filed. The Hon'ble High Court disposed of that OP along with other OPs under the common judgment, setting aside the order and remanded the matter on the following lines: “9. On perusal of the above, both the respondents/ applicants had opted for the NEPP scheme, therefore, they are to be governed by clause 6.4 extracted above, which provided that the upgradation in the pay scale availed by the non-executive employee on the basis of the existing BCR (emphasis supplied for adjudication) after 1/10/2000 and before notification of the policy to be treated as the first upgradation, therefore, such benefit could not have been held to be withdrawn.

10. In other cases, the very same judgment has been incorporated, whereas it should have been dealt with separately by taking note of the facts vis-a-vis the option exercised and considering the date of promotion.

11. In this view of the matter, we thus set aside the

Deepa S

judgments of the Tribunal and remit the matters to the Tribunal to decide afresh, all cases separately. O.As are ordered to be restored to the original file. Original Petition stands disposed off.” Thus the O.A. has come up before this Tribunal again.

18. It also requires to be pointed out that after the remand, the respondents filed an additional reply stating as to how the pay of the applicant had to be reduced. According to them, BCR promotion given to the applicant was granted on 03.10.2009 prior to the introduction of the second PRC in BSNL. Second PRC came on 07.05.2010 to be implemented with effect from 01.01.2007. Originally, the pay of the applicant on 01.01.2007 was Rs.6820/- in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.5700-8100. Then they have quoted the pay given to the applicant as seen in Annexure- A2. Thereafter, it is submitted that in view of Annexure-R2(d) clarification, since the applicant's BCR promotion being one not involving higher responsibility, as provided under FR 22(1)a(ii) his pay was re-fixed at Rs.16370/- vide Annexure-R2(e) revised pay fixation, withdrawing the increment given on 03.10.2009 in his BCR promotion, since his pay before the said promotion Rs.16370 was higher than the minimum of the higher

Deepa S

scale of Rs.12520-23440 (NE-8). So, his pay was refixed on 03.10.2009 at Rs.16370/- in the NE-8 pay scale, on 01.10.2010 at Rs.16870/- with date of next increment on 01.10.2011 at Rs.17380/- and so on. Thus they have justified the reduction in pay and recovery of the excess amount paid to the applicant.

19. Thus reiterating the contentions in the earlier reply, they prayed for dismissing the O.A.

20. We heard Smt.Anjuman Habeeb on behalf of Sri.C.A. Joy, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.George Kuruvilla, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

21. Ms.Anjuman Habeeb has submitted that the applicant started service as a Lineman and that he did not have that much education at the time of entering in service and even if Annexure-R2(b) option was submitted against his own interest, it should have been eschewed by the respondents.

22. But according to the learned Standing Counsel, the option given by the applicant could not have been ignored by the respondents, the loss has caused to him only because of the option, his own volition as seen

Deepa S

in Annexure-R2(b).

23. The O.A. has been moved raising four fold contentions. Initially, it was submitted that though NEPP was introduced, he was not extended the benefit of the same. Ordinarily, he should have been given NEPP benefits giving first promotion in 2004 and second promotion after seven years in 2011, but, such a benefit was not given to him. Secondly, that he has been illegally retained in BCR fixation given in 2009, which is also bad and against the scheme. Thirdly, it is submitted that he was given less pay than that of Sri.Sivan as seen in Annexure-A5 and lastly, the recovery of Rs.25,924/- from his retiral benefits is illegal and unjustified.

24. Annexure-A3 NEPP was introduced with effect from 01.10.2000, even though the scheme was launched on 23.03.2010, which had retrospective effect. It postulates time bound IDA scale upgradation to the posts drawing non-executive pay scales of NE-1 to NE-10. It states that maximum four upgradations will be allowed in BSNL irrespective of any upgradation provided to such employee before formation of the BSNL. Clause 3.2 states that non-executives who have been recruited by the Department of Telecom prior to 01.10.2000 will, as a concession, be

Deepa S

considered for time bound IDA pay scale upgradation in the following manner: “a. First Time Bound IDA pay scale up-gradation to the next higher non-executive IDA pay scale will be considered after 4 years of service in the IDA pay scale held by the employee as on 01/10/2000. This pay upgradation will be notional if the date of upgradation is before 01/04/2008. The actual benefits of pay fixation will be paid only from 01/04/2008.

b. Second Time Bound IDA pay scale up-gradation to the next higher IDA pay scale will be considered after 7 years of service in first upgraded non-executive IDA pay scale.” For our purpose clauses 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5 are also important, as extracted below: “6.3 Time Bound IDA pay scale upgradations are personal to non-executive concerned and no claim what-so-ever can be made by comparison on grounds of seniority, class, community, cadre, stream etc. Further, except as provided in the instant guidelines, there will be no claim on account of any of the other provisions of FRSR in the context of pay scale, pay fixation, substantive status etc. 6.4 Upgradation in Pay scale availed by a non-executive employee on the basis of existing OTBP/BCR/Grade-IV/ACP scheme etc. or by way of conversion/restructuring/pay scale upgradation etc. after 01/10/2000 and before notification of this

Deepa S

new policy will be treated as the first upgradation under the new policy. The concerned employee may, however, opt for first upgradation as per this policy by foregoing the promotion already availed under the erstwhile OTBP/BCR/Grade-IV/ACP schemes etc. or by way of conversion/restructuring/pay scale upgradation etc. 6.5 Upgradation in Pay scale availed by a Non-Executive employee on the basis of any post based promotion on or after 01/10/2000 and before 01/10/2004 will be treated as first upgradation as per para 3.2 (a) above.”

25. From the provisions of the NEPP, quoted supra, it is clear that the BSNL wanted to discontinue the OTBP/BCR/Grade-IV/ACP policy as a rule and all the non-executives should come over to the new scheme, which is apparently advantageous to them. At the same time, they wanted to give an option to the employees who wanted to remain out of the purview of the scheme to continue in the erstwhile time bound promotion scheme. It was made clear, as shown earlier, such option to remain out of the purview of the policy will have to be exercised within one month from the date of the promulgation of Annexure-A3. It seems that majority of the non-executives remained dormant, thus embraced the NEPP. But Annexure-R2(b) option was admittedly given by the applicant on 16.10.2010 expressly showing that he wanted to opt for continuation of

Deepa S

the existing OTBP/BCR/Grade-IV/ACP scheme which will be personal to him.

26. The O.A. has been filed as though he did not give any such option and thus wanted to be shifted to the NEPP. In the averments in the O.A. and also the grounds urged by him suggest that he had never submitted an option to retain the BCR given to him. But through Annexure- R2(b) such a contention stands exposed. But that has been tried to be explained in the rejoinder. In the rejoinder he has not denied Annexure- R2(b), but submits that it was given without evaluating the benefits of the new promotion policy. Such an argument or the present contention of the learned counsel that he does not have much education, he started service as a Lineman etc. cannot stand. Lakhs of employees were working in the BSNL at the time when the Annexure-A3 was launched. It is not proper for the respondents to make comparative assessment whether one option is more advantageous to a particular employee or not. It is the individual choice of the employee either to move over to the scheme or to remain in the old scheme, which was available to him. After having given Annexure- R2(b)option which was his own choice, there is no point in submitting that,

Deepa S

that was not a proper exercise of discretion and that his intention was different etc.

27. Secondly, as shown by the respondents, Annexure-R2(h) communication dated 28.09.2011 indicates that another opportunity was given further to Annexure-A3 to give fresh options, superseding the earlier options, if any given. Even then, the applicant did not give any fresh option. He wanted to say that he was not aware of such an opportunity having given under Annexure-R2(h). It cannot be thought that Annexure- R2(h) was not given proper publicity by the respondents. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that numerous employees have made use of this opportunity and got themselves shifted to the NEPP scheme and there is no point in now saying that the applicant had not come across the Annexure-R2(h) communication.

28. In other words, from Annexure-A3 etc. it is clear that the rule was to extend the benefit of NEPP to all the non-executives and the exception was the choice of the individual employees. The applicant, by exercising Annexure-R2(b) option wanted to remain out of the scheme and retained his BCR promotion granted on 03.10.2009. After having made

Deepa S

such an option, which was his discretion, now, there is no point in submitting that he never intended to opt out of the scheme etc. So, the first contention falls to the ground.

29. It must be stated that the applicant has moved this Tribunal either with statements containing half truths or statements, which are highly misleading. As indicated earlier, at first he wanted to say that he did not give any such option to remain outside the purview of Annexure-A3 scheme. But, Annexure-R2(b) clearly indicates that he wanted to retain his BCR promotion and thus the pay was fixed accordingly. Thus on the basis of the option exercised by him only that he was kept out of the purview of Annexure-A3 scheme.

30. The contention that Sri.Sivan, his colleague is getting higher pay etc. also does not appeal to reason. It was the individual choice of the said Sivan to opt the Annexure-A3 scheme. As indicated earlier, upgradations given under the scheme are personal and no claim whatsoever can be made by comparison on grounds of seniority, class, community, cadre, stream etc. So, here, no scope for comparison arises and on that ground also the applicant is bound to fail.

Deepa S

31. Turning to the last contention regarding recovery of Rs.25,924/- it has been well explained by the respondents as to how the pay was reduced with effect from 03.10.2009. Earlier, he was given fixation with an additional increment in the scale of Rs.12520-23440 with one increment on the date of promotion and his pay was fixed at Rs.16870/-. But, while granting such a BCR promotion, which did not involve any higher responsibility he was not entitled to get an additional increment and realising this mistake the said increment was withdrawn and his pay as on 03.10.2009 was reduced from Rs.16870/- to Rs.16370/- and thus there occurred subsequent reductions such over payments have been quantified at Rs.25924/-, which was taken as the excess pay and that was later recovered from his terminal benefits after his retirement on 30.11.2014, which has been justified by the respondents.

32. We have no doubt that mistakes had happened in the fixation of pay when he was granted BCR on 03.10.2009, which was subsequently rectified and recovery was contemplated. Recovery was kept in abeyance for some time and ultimately finding that, after his retirement chances of recovery is remote, the entire amount was recovered from his terminal

Deepa S

benefits.

33. As stated earlier, the Hon'ble High Court wanted the cases to be considered individually. We have already disposed of the O.A.1056/2014, which was taken as the lead case earlier, by our order dated 03.09.2026. There also, the applicants had given options to retain in the erstwhile scheme and not to adopt the Annexure-A3 NEPP scheme. Thus we had to dismiss the O.A. However, basing on State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih [(2015) 4 SCC 334], we held that the recovery of amount from a Group-C employee at the time of retirement was incorrect. The very same dictum is applicable here also. Therefore, basing on the decision in Rafiq Masih, quoted supra, we hold that recovery of Rs.25,924/- is bad and the respondents are directed to refund the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

34. At the time when the O.A. was heard, we had queried as to whether the applicants in O.A.1056/2014 have moved judicial review, but the learned counsel has submitted that they have not filed any OP before the High Court so far. That means, that order must be taken to have

Deepa S

attained finality. Whatever it may be, on the same lines, we reject the plea of the applicant that he is entitled to be switched over to the NEPP and get all the benefits thereunder. However, the amount of Rs.25,924/- shall be refunded to the applicant within four months. The Original Application is disposed of as above. No costs. (Dated this the 30th October, 2026) BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL

JUSTICE K. HARIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ds

Deepa S

List of Annexures Annexure A1: The copy of the communication, Letter No.E II/2/40/ RKR/2013-14/11 dated 19.01.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent. Annexure A2: The pay fixation memo of the applicant dated 21.05.2010. Annexure A3: A true copy of the NEPP Scheme implemented by the respondent. Annexure A4: A true copy of the pay slip of the applicant for the month of November 2014. Annexure A5: A true copy of the pay slip of Sri.Sivan T.K. for the month of January 2014. Annexure A6: A true copy of the above representation dated 27.12.2014. Annexure R2(a) True copy of the Appointment order. Annexure R2(b) True copy of the option submitted by the Applicant. Annexure R2(c) True copy of the points raised & the clarifications issued. Annexure R2(d) True copy of the office order no. 1-4/2011-PAT-(BSNL) dt. 05-04-2011. Annexure R2(e) True copy of the revised pay fixation. Annexure R2(f) True copy of the BSNL Kerala Circle office letter no. AP II/ Union-TVM/2010/4 dt. 16-06-2012. Annexure R2(g) True copy of the option submitted by the Sri. Sivan T.Κ.

Deepa S

Annexure R2(h) True copy of the letter dt. 28-09-2011 and clarifications. Annexure R2(i) True copy of the option submitted by Sri. Hariprasad N.

******* 2026.11.04 13:47:18+05'30' Deepa S