Ganesh Puri vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 3 November 2026

1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited through its Chairman & Managing Director, Corporate Office, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Harish Chander Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi.

2. Chief General Manager Telecommunications, BSNL, Rajasthan Telecom Circle, C-Scheme, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur-302008.

3. General Manager Telecom District Nagaur, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Nagaur-341001.

….Respondents

PRESENT : Mr. A.K.Kaushik, Advocate, for applicant. Mr. Kamal Dave, Advocate, for the respondents.

O R D E R [ORAL]

Per Rameshwar Vyas :

Being aggrieved by the order dated 09.03.2017 (Annex. A/1) rejecting the claim of the applicant for stepping up of pay, the applicant has filed the instant application impugning the above communication and seeking a direction to grant him stepping up of pay w.e.f. 01.10.2000 at par with his junior Sh. Idan Ram with all consequential benefits.

Mehta

2- [ OA No. 291 of 2017]

2 The facts necessary to adjudicate this OA are as under:- 2.1 The applicant was initially appointed on the post of a Line Man on 21.10.1978 at Jalore in the Department of Telecommunication. After incorporation of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), Group ‘C’ & ‘D’ employees of the Telecom Department were absorbed in the BSNL w.e.f. 01.10.2000. As per office order dated 07.08.2002 (Annex. R/1), the existing Central Dearness Allowance (CDA) pay scales were replaced by Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) pay scales w.e.f. 01.10.2000. This office order also provides the manner of replacement of CDA scales of pay to IDA scales of pay at the time of absorption w.e.f. 01.10.2000. 2.2 The pay of the applicant in existing CDA pattern was also replaced by IDA pattern in the corresponding BSNL scales of pay w.e.f. 01.10.2000. The applicant has based his claim on the judgment of co- ordinate bench of this Tribunal at Ernakulam on 27.03.2012 in OA No. 419 of 2011 [H. Johnkutty & Others Vs. CGMT BSNL Thiruvananthapuram & Ors.], wherein, the respondents were directed to step up the pay of the applicants in that OA at par with their junior. 2.3 The applicant filed various representations which were replied by impugned communication dated 09.03.2017 (Annex. A/1). The applicant has preferred this OA impugning the above communication and seeking a direction against the respondents to grant him pay equal to that of his junior, i.e.Sh. Idan Ram

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the pay of the applicant was fixed w.e.f. 01.10.2000 at the minimum of replacement IDA scale of pay resulting in an anomalous situation whereby the persons who were holding similar/analogus post or those

Mehta

3- [ OA No. 291 of 2017]

regular incumbents who failed in the first screening test were getting a higher stage of pay in the replacement IDA scale than the applicant. This anomaly was further compounded when junior of the applicant was promoted on various dates after 01.10.2000 and started drawing more increments than the applicant. It is further contended that the respondents have nothing to say on the various judgments whereby similarly situated persons have been granted benefits of stepping up pay in similar situations. Since the issue is no more res-integra, the OA deserves to be allowed, contended learned counsel for the applicant. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the following judgments :

(1) M.R. Gupta Vs. Union Of India & Ors [AIR 1096 SC 669]

(2) Union of India through G.M. N.W. Zone & Anr Vs. Jagdish Kumar Bulchandani & Anr. [DBCWP No. 4330/2019 decided on 26.03.2019] decided by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur.

(3) Er. Gurcharan Singh Grewal & Anr Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors, [2009 (2) SLJ 271 (SC)].

5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant cannot be allowed to raise the controversy after more than about 12 years that too without any prayer seeking condonation of delay. The applicant has challenged the fixation of his pay w.e.f. 01.10.2000 on his absorption from Telecom Department to the BSNL. The applicant cannot be allowed any relief in contravention of the statutory provisions of Sec. 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. He cannot claim similar relief to that of vigilant litigants who raised their grievance in time. The claim raised after 12 years is clearly a stale and dead claim which cannot furnish a fresh cause of action. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the following judgments :

Mehta

4- [ OA No. 291 of 2017]

(1) Delhi Administration & Ors Vs. Hira Lal & Ors [(1999) 6 SCC 58]

(2) Union of India Vs. M.K. Sarkar [(2010) 2 SCC 59]

(3) A.P. Steel Re -rolling Mill Ltd Vs. State of Kerala; [(2007) 2 SCC 725]

(4) Union of India Vs. O.P. Saxena [(1997) 6 SCC 360]. On merits, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the pay of the applicant has been fixed at the stage corresponding to the stage which he had reached under CDA pay scale on 30.09.2000, i.e. pay fixation was on point to point basis. The stepping up of pay is subject to the condition that the junior and senior, shall be identical in cadre and identical in pay scale. In this case, cadre and pay scales of the junior and senior are different so stepping up of pay of the senior at par with the junior is not justified. Contradicting the claim of the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents prayed to dismiss the OA.

6. Having regard to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and material available on record, it emerges that the applicant is seeking relief in line with the judgment passed by coordinate bench of this Tribunal at Ernakulam on 27.03.2012 in OA No. 419 of 2011 [H. Johnkutty & Ors Vs. CGMT BSNL Thiruvananthapuram & Ors.] wherein the respondents were directed to rectify the anomaly in the matter of pay in comparison to that of their junior by stepping up of pay of the applicants in that OA at par with their juniors. It is the specific case of the applicant that he was appointed as a Lineman and promoted as Sub Inspector Officiating and then as T.M. w.e.f. 15.01.2000 prior to his junior yet he is getting less pay than his junior.

Mehta

5- [ OA No. 291 of 2017]

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the grievance of the applicant with regard to his pay anomaly wherein his junior is getting more pay than the applicant, has not been considered and decided by the respondents on case to case basis on merits before passing of order dated 09.03.2017 (Annex. A/1) whereby, his claim for stepping up pay at par with his junior has been rejected in a cursory manner. Unless and until the grievance with regard to pay anomaly is considered and decided by passing a final order, it would not be just and proper to reject the claim of the applicant on the point of limitation. In view of the above, the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents with regard to limitation is not sustainable. Perusal of the impugned order dated 09.03.2017 (Annex. A/1) also suggests that while passing the above order, the respondents have not taken into account the judgment passed by coordinate bench of this Tribunal at Ernakulam on 27.03.2012 in OA No. 419 of 2011 [H. Johnkutty & Ors v. CGMT BSNL Thiruvananthapuram & Ors]. The impugned order also does not disclose the exact reasons for not finding the applicant’s case fit for stepping up of pay at par with his junior despite the fact the applicant was appointed and promoted in the same cadre prior to his junior. It is also pertinent to note that, while rejecting the claim of the applicant by order impugned, the matter was referred to Circle Office, Jaipur which suggests that the authority passing the order impugned was not sure about the correctness of the same. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the respondents should have examined each case on its merit with relevant service particulars and as per extant rules and law on the subject since the applicant’s claim that a junior is getting more pay than the senior in the same cadre is based on strong

Mehta

6- [ OA No. 291 of 2017]

grounds. Hence, the impugned order dated 09.03.2017 is not sustainable in the eye of law.

7. Accordingly, while disposing of this OA, the impugned order dated 09.03.2017 (Annex. A/1) rejecting the claim of the applicant for stepping up pay is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to re- examine the grievance of the applicant with regard to pay anomaly in comparison to his junior and decide the same as per the extant rules and in light of the order dated 27.03.2012 in OA No. 419 of 2011 [H. Johnkutty & Ors v. CGMT BSNL Thiruvananthapuram & Ors] passed by CAT Ernakulam Bench as also the principles laid down in OA No. 608/2011 referred to in para 7 of the above judgment. The respondents shall re-examine and decide the case of applicant in terms of above observations within six months from the date of issue of certified copy of this order.

8. O.A. is thus disposed of with the above directions, with no orders as to costs.

(Hukum Singh Meena) (Rameshwar Vyas) Member(Administrative) Member (Judicial)

Jrm

Mehta