A S Mohanan vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 2 November 2026

O R D E R

Justice K. Haripal, Judicial Member Applicant is a former Telecom Mechanic in Thodupuzha Telephone Exchange under the BSNL. He started service as a Lineman on 20.04.1983, became Telecom Mechanic in 1997 and retired on superannuation on 30.04.2014. Annexure-A1 shows that at the time of retirement, his basic pay was Rs.20050/- in the pay scale of Rs.12520-23440. At the same time, his junior Sri.Sivan T.K. was drawing basic pay of Rs.20880/- in January 2014. The applicant thus says that there is anomaly in the junior getting higher pay than the applicant, which should have been rectified. He gave Annexure-A4 representation, which was rejected through Annexures-A5 and A6 communications issued by the 2nd and 1st respondents respectively on 20.04.2015 and 05.05.2015. Annexures-A5 and A6 are under challenge here. The applicant seeks to set aside both the orders besides a declaration that he is entitled for stepping up of his pay at par with junior, Sivan T.K. at Rs.20880/- in the pay scale of Rs.13600-25420 as on the date of retirement and to issue an order directing the respondents to disburse the arrears of salary and other benefits including revision in the retirement benefits within a time frame.

Deepa S

2. According to the applicant, it is the accepted principle that the anomaly in the pay between an employee and his junior as a result of the point to point fixation while switching over from the CDA pay scale to IDA pay scale should be rectified, for which he has placed reliance on the Annexure-A3 communication issued by the General Manager (HM & ADMN) of the BSNL. It was on that basis he had given Annexure-A4 representation.

3. Referring to Annexures-A5 and A6 it is submitted that he has not given any option to continue with the BCR fixation and the promotion policy statement filed by the applicant to continue with the BCR fixation policy existed prior to 01.10.2000. The applicant has not submitted an option for availing the promotion under NEPP scheme. Thus he should have been granted the benefits of the NEPP and therefore, the Annexures- A5 and A6 cannot stand.

4. The respondents filed a detailed reply justifying Annexures-A5 and A6. According to them, the applicant has no legal right and no provision of law has been infringed and that the Original Application is liable to be dismissed.

5. Referring to Annexure-R(a) it is submitted that the applicant

Deepa S

was granted BCR promotion on 22.04.2009, at that time his basic pay was fixed at Rs.7475/- with date of next increment on 01.04.2010 to Rs.7660/-. At the same time, after the 2nd pay revision, that has been replaced by Annexure-R(b) Pay Fixation Memo issued on 22.05.2010 whereunder the pay was revised to Rs.14970/- as on 01.01.2007. Thereafter, on 22.04.2009 the pay was fixed at Rs.16870/- in the pay scale of Rs.12520-23440. At the same time, on the basis of the communication issued by the respondents that an additional increment granted to the applicant invoking FR 22(1)(a)

(i) was incorrect, since on granting BCR promotion there involved no higher responsibility, the additional increment granted to the applicant on 22.04.2009 was withdrawn and the pay was reduced to Rs.16370/- as on 22.04.2009 and an amount of Rs.20164/- has been recovered being the over payment of salary and allowances.

6. With regard to the junior-senior anomaly, it is submitted referring to Annexure-R(e) communication issued by the BSNL, that in two situations, as stated in the document, it could be considered. Annexure- Rf(i) communication was issued on 23.03.2010 implementing the NEPP scheme with effect from 01.10.2000, the date of formation of the BSNL. On that basis, the applicant could have given option to switch over to the

Deepa S

NEPP, which he did not do. On the other hand, the applicant opted to continue in the erstwhile promotion scheme. Supporting the same, Annexure-R(g) option has been produced by the respondents. So, according to the respondents, in the light of Annexure-R(g), the statement of the applicant that he did not give any option form, is incorrect and the O.A. is not sustainable. On the other hand, the said Sri.Sivan and other employees had opted for switching over to NEPP. On that basis, Sri.Sivan was granted first promotion on 01.10.2004 and second promotion after seven years, in 2011 and that was how he started drawing higher pay than the applicant. It is not liable to be interfered with. So, the O.A. is sought to be dismissed.

7. We heard Smt.Anjuman Habeeb on behalf of Sri.C.A. Joy, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.P.Muraleedharan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

8. Incidentally, it must be stated that this is the second time the O.A. comes up before the Tribunal. Earlier, by order dated 19.09.2017 the O.A. was considered and allowed on the basis of the decision rendered by the Tribunal in O.A.1056/2014, on the following lines: “7. The above quoted provision in NEPP came up for adjudication before this Tribunal in OA No. 180/1056/2014. In the final order dated

Deepa S

17.6.2017 this Tribunal held: “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 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

Deepa S

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 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.” In the light of the above decision we feel that we are bound to follow the same decision in this case also.”

8. Therefore, we allow this OA by directing the respondents to fix the pay of the applicant under NEPP scheme on par with the pay of his junior Shri Sivan T.K. mentioned in the OA. The consequential benefits also shall be given to the applicant. However, the monetary benefits of arrears will be restricted to three years prior to the date of filing of this OA as laid down by the apex court in Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh – (2008) 8 SCC 648. The applicant's last pay drawn also shall be re-fixed and a revised pension payment order shall be issued to him. The respondents shall comply the above directions within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.

9. The Original Application is allowed as above. No order as to

Deepa S

costs.”

9. Against the said verdict the respondents filed series of Original Petitions before the High Court. Against the order in this O.A., OP(CAT)No.74/2018 was filed. That OP along with connected OPs were considered by the Hon'ble High Court on 06.02.2025 and by a common judgment the earlier order, quoted supra, was reversed by the High Court and remitted the O.A. back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The relevant portions of the judgment of the High Court reads thus: “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 judgments of the Tribunal and remit the matters to the Tribunal to decide afresh, all cases separately. O.As are ordered to be restored

Deepa S

to the original file.”

10. Thus the matter has come up for fresh consideration by the Tribunal. But, unfortunately, by the time the OP(CAT) was disposed of, entire pleadings in the O.A. and reply were destroyed by the Registry. Thus after the remand pleadings had to be reconstructed with the help of the learned counsel on both sides. Both of them provided respective pleadings and accordingly, the matter was again heard and being disposed of.

11. The challenge in this O.A. is Annexures-A5 and A6 communications issued by the respondents in reply to the Annexure-A4 representation. The crux of the grievance of the applicant is that he has been paid less than Sri.T.K.Sivan, his junior, hence he is entitled to get the pay revised to Rs.20880/- from Rs.20050/-. His retirement benefits have been fixed basing on the last pay fixed at Rs.20050/- as seen in Annexure- A1. In this connection, he has also placed reliance on Annexure-A3 communication issued by the BSNL. But, from the averments of the respondents it is clear that such disparity had occurred as the direct consequence of the options submitted by the applicant as well as the said Sivan. It is not disputed that Sri.Sivan was junior to the applicant. But the said Sivan had opted to switch over to NEPP scheme promulgated by the

Deepa S

BSNL on 23.03.2010, which was effective from 01.10.2000.

12. In this connection, it is apposite to say that the NEPP scheme was introduced for safeguarding the interests of non-executives in the BSNL, who were working on regular establishment as on 01.04.2008 or after in a substantive post, drawing non-executive pay scales of NE-1 to NE-

10. It postulates maximum four upgradations in the entire career irrespective of any upgradation provided to such employees before formation of the BSNL. In this connection, clauses 3.2 and 6.3 of the scheme are very relevant. “3.2 Such non-Executives who have been recruited by DoT prior to 01.10.2000 will, as a concession, be considered for Time Bound IDA pay scale up-gradations 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. xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxx

Deepa S

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.”

13. It is also evident that the applicant who had started as Lineman was promoted as Telecom Mechanic in 1997 and was granted BCR promotion on 22.04.2009.

14. As indicated earlier, the intention of the BSNL was to shift the entire non-executives to the new promotion policy which is apparently advantageous to them. From clause 5.1 referred to above it is certain that even if a non-executive remains dormant without exercising any option, ordinarily he should be covered by the NEPP scheme which is automatically applicable to him. At the same time, they also had option to continue in the former promotion policy under the OTBP/BCR/Grade-IV/ACP policy. That means, if the employee remained silent without exercising any option, he would automatically gets covered by the NEPP forgoing all the promotions granted under the erstwhile policies and would have secured the first promotion on 01.10.2004 and second promotion on 01.10.2011,

Deepa S

after the lapse of seven years. At the same time, if the employee decided and opted for retaining in the erstwhile promotion schemes, he would not be covered by the NEPP.

15. Here the applicant has asserted that he did not give any option to retain in the erstwhile promotion schemes and thus he should have been covered by the NEPP. But such a stand has been repudiated by the respondents. Producing Anneuxre-R(g) Form-II exercised by the applicant on 12.10.2010 it is submitted that the applicant had opted to retain the erstwhile BCR promotion scheme. That means, he will get the first promotion benefit only from 22.04.2009, on which date he was given the BCR fixation and would have got second promotion only after seven years, but before that date he retired from service on 30.04.2014.

16. On the other hand, the said Sivan, his junior had opted to move over to the promotion policy under the NEPP and was given first promotion in 2004 and the second promotion in 2011 and therefore, naturally, he might have enjoyed the benefit under the new promotion policy. In this connection, it is advantageous to rely on clause 6.3 of the Annexure-R1(f) policy, quoted supra, which provides that such time bound IDA upgradations are personal to non-executives and a claim whatsoever

Deepa S

cannot be made by comparison on grounds of seniority, class, community, cadre, stream etc. That means, the applicant who chose to retain his BCR promotion on 22.04.2009 cannot be heard to say that he is being paid less pay than his junior. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, the said junior had exercised the option deligently and moved over to the NEPP, whereas the applicant wanted to continue in the erstwhile BCR promotion scheme, such a disparity in the pay is the result of the option exercised by the applicant, which cannot be reckoned or rectified by the respondents.

17. It is relevant to notice that the applicant did not file any rejoinder disowning Annexure-R(g) option given on 12.10.2010.

18. Learned counsel for the applicant raised two fold contentions. Firstly, that the applicant had started as a Lineman and because of lack of proper understanding of the result of the option exercised by him, he might have suffered loss, which should have been forgone by the respondents. We are unable to sustain such a contention. It is the discretion exercised by the applicant and he is bound to get the benefit or loss whatever it may be, of that decision.

19. Moreover, we take judicial notice that on 28.09.2011 the BSNL

Deepa S

had issued a notification F.No.13-2/2010-TE enabling the employees to make use of one more opportunity to give further option either to withdraw the former option or to retain in the earlier promotion policy. That opportunity was also not used by the applicant.

20. In this connection, it is appropriate to say that we had occasion to consider the questions in O.A.1056/2014, which was disposed of by us in our order dated 03.09.2026, where we discounted such a contention raised by the applicants and dismissed the O.A.

21. The second argument of Smt. Anjuman Habeeb was that an amount of Rs.20164/- recovered from the terminal benefits of the applicant is liable to be refunded. In fact we have upheld such a contention in the connected OAs disposed of by us. Earlier, we had disposed of O.A.1056/2014, which was considered to be the lead case at that time, upholding the contentions based on the decision in State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih [(2015) 4 SCC 334]. Here also, such a view is appropriate. The applicant was made to refund Rs.20164/-, which was the over payment made after the re-fixation of pay consequent to the BCR fixation granted from 22.04.2009. As stated earlier, initially his pay on re- fixation was fixed at Rs.16870/- with effect from 22.04.2009, which was

Deepa S

later reduced to Rs.16370/- by one stage and the said amount of Rs.20164/- is the excess payment made by the respondents. The applicant is not at all responsible for the grant of an additional increment, and thus having regard to the clauses 1 and 2 of the Rafiq Masih, paragraph 12, the said amount is liable to be refunded to the applicant.

22. Resultantly, the prayer for quashing Annexures-A5 and A6 is liable to be rejected. However, we direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.20164/- recovered from the retiral benefits of the applicant within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Original Application is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. (Dated this the 2nd November, 2026) BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL

JUSTICE K. HARIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ds

Deepa S

List of Annexures Annexure A1:. A true copy of the pension payment order of the applicant. Annexure A2: A true copy of the pay slip of Sri.Sivan T.K. for the month of January 2014 Annexure A3: A true copy of the communication dated 22.02.2014 issued by the office of the Chief General Manager, Thiruvananthapuram. Annexure A4: A true copy of the representation dated 02.04.2015. Annexure A5: A true copy of the communication dated 20.04.2015 Annexure A6: A true copy of the communication dated 05.05.2015 issued by the 1st respondent. Annexure R(a): A true copy of the Pay Fixation Memo of the applicant dated 30.09.2009 Annexure R(b): A true copy of the Pay Fixation Memo of the applicant dated 22.5.2010 Annexure R(c):A true copy of the communication letter dated 5.4.2011. Annexure R(d): A true copy of the Pay Fixation Memo of the applicant dated 07.04.2012. Annexure R(e): A true copy of communication letter dated 4.5.2012. Annexure R(f): A true copy of communication letter dated 23.03.2010. Annexure R(g): A true copy of Option Form of the applicant dated 12.10.2010.

*******

Deepa S