Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Ramakrishnan K P vs The Chairman And Managing Director Bsnl ... on 2 April, 2026
-1-
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/00003/2020
Thursday this the 2nd day of April 2026
CO RAM:
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Ms.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Ramakrishnan.K.P.,
S/o.Raman Nair,
Aged 67 years,
Retired Telephone Mechanic,
HR - 197705797, O/o.SDE (Extl),
BSNL, Vallayil, Calicut.
Residing at Nediyodil House,
Edakkad P.O., West Hills, Kozhikode - 673 005. ...Applicant
(By Advocate Mr.V.V.Suresh)
versus
1. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited,
represented by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Corporate Office, Statesman House, Barakamba Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Principal General Manager, Telecom,
BSNL, Kozhikode - 673 001.
3. The Accounts Officer (Estt.),
O/o.the Principal General Manager,
Telecom, BSNL, Kozhikode - 673 001.
A S Peethambaran 2026.04.02 13:01:57+05'30'
-2-
4. The Controller of Communication Accounts,
Government of India, Door Sanchar Bhavan,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033. ...Respondents
(By Advocates Mrs.Girija.K.Gopal [R1-3]
& Mr.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, SPC [R4])
This application having been heard on 18 th March, 2026 the
Tribunal on 2nd April, 2026 delivered the following :
ORDER
HON'BLE Ms.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant was working as a Telecom Mechanic in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), Calicut SSA, and retired from service on 30.06.2012 after rendering 35 years of service. He initially entered service under the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) on 02.05.1977. It is submitted that with effect from 01.10.2000, the DoT was corporatized into Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), a Public Sector Undertaking wholly owned by the Government of India. Consequent upon such corporatization, the pay scales of employees were converted from the Central Dearness Allowance (CDA) pattern to the Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) pattern. This conversion resulted in anomalies due to point-to-point fixation in the IDA scales, whereby employees holding similar posts and drawing pay in the same pre-revised A S Peethambaran 2026.04.02 13:01:57+05'30' -3- scale were fixed at different stages in the revised scale. Prior to the formation of BSNL, the applicant had already been promoted as Telecom Mechanic under the DoT.
2. It is further submitted that after the formation of BSNL, an agreement dated 26.04.2002 was entered into between the Board of Directors of BSNL and the Unions representing its employees, governing inter alia the pay scales applicable to Group 'C' and Group 'D' employees. Pursuant to the said agreement, the 1 st respondent issued Office Order dated 07.08.2002 introducing IDA pay scales with retrospective effect from 01.10.2000, replacing the existing CDA scales for Non-Executive staff absorbed from DoT/DTS/DTO. The said Office Order is produced as Annexure A-1. As per Clause 2(g) of Annexure A-1, pay fixation in the corresponding IDA scales was to be done on a point-to-point basis, with a specific assurance that any anomalies, aberrations, hardships, or difficulties arising out of such fixation would be examined and settled sympathetically upon being brought to notice.
A S Peethambaran 2026.04.02 13:01:57+05'30' -4-
3. The applicant was drawing a basic pay of Rs.4200/- in the CDA scale of Rs.4000-100-6000, which was fixed at Rs.6020/- in the corresponding IDA scale of Rs.5700-160-8100 with effect from 01.10.2000. However, several of his juniors, who were drawing lesser pay in lower CDA scales, were fixed at higher stages in the IDA scales. For instance, certain Line Men, who were juniors to the applicant and were drawing Rs.4050/- in the CDA scale of Rs.3200-85-4900, were fixed at Rs.6220/- in the IDA scale of Rs.4720-150-6970, thereby receiving more increments under the point-to-point fixation method. In contrast, the applicant, despite being in a higher pre-revised scale and holding a promotional post, was fixed at a lower stage of Rs.6020/- in the IDA scale of Rs.5700-160-8100. This resulted in a clear anomaly wherein juniors, who had not even been promoted as Telecom Mechanics prior to 01.10.2000, were drawing higher pay than the applicant in the revised scale. The anomaly was further aggravated when such juniors were subsequently promoted as Telecom Mechanics after 01.10.2000. The applicant repeatedly submitted representations seeking rectification of the anomaly and stepping up of his pay on par with his juniors. A comparative statement showing the disparity between the applicant and A S Peethambaran 2026.04.02 13:01:57+05'30' -5- his junior Shri.Mohanbabu is produced as Annexure A-2. Despite multiple representations, no remedial action was taken by the respondents. It is further submitted that from May 2010 onwards, the applicant's juniors continued to draw higher basic pay than him in the same IDA pay scale of Rs.12520-23440, compelling him to submit repeated representations seeking redressal of the anomaly.
4. It is submitted that similarly situated Telecom Mechanics had earlier approached this Hon'ble Tribunal by filing O.A.No.688/2012 and connected cases, and obtained favourable orders. A copy of the order dated 09.01.2013 in O.A.No.688/2012 is produced as Annexure A-3. Thereafter, the applicant, along with three similarly placed individuals, approached the department after retirement, highlighting the anomaly in pay fixation. However, no action was taken by the respondents, compelling those individuals to file O.A.No.848/2017, which also resulted in a favourable order. A copy of the order dated 24.10.2017 in O.A.No.848/2017 is produced as Annexure A-4. It is submitted that the applicant could not join the said proceedings due to serious cardiac ailments prevailing at the relevant time. Pursuant to the orders of this A S Peethambaran 2026.04.02 13:01:57+05'30' -6- Hon'ble Tribunal, the respondents revised the pay of those applicants and stepped up their pay on par with their juniors who were drawing higher salaries. A copy of the consequential order is produced as Annexure A-5. The applicant thus raised his grievance regarding the anomaly before the Pension Adalath held on 18.09.2018, which found that the applicant was entitled to refixation of his pay and consequential revision of pension. The Adalath, accordingly, forwarded the matter to the Accounts Officer, PGMT, BSNL, Calicut, for reconsideration and for submission of revised calculations to the Accounts Officer (Pension) for implementation. A copy of the proceedings is produced as Annexure A-6. However, no action was taken thereafter. On continued representations by the applicant, the Accounts Officer (Pension) issued reminders to the concerned authorities for necessary action. A copy of the same is produced as Annexure A-7.
5. It is submitted that in the absence of any response, the applicant submitted a further representation to the Accounts Officer (Estt.), Office of the GMT, BSNL, Calicut. A copy of the said representation is produced as Annexure A-8. In response, the Accounts Officer (Estt.), A S Peethambaran 2026.04.02 13:01:57+05'30' -7- Office of the GMT, BSNL, Calicut, clarified that the applicant's case is similar to that of Shri Kunjiraman K. and others, whose pay and pension had been revised by stepping up to the level of their juniors. However, it was stated that since the applicant was not a party to the said O.A., his pension could not be revised based on the Court's order in that case. A copy of the said communication is produced as Annexure A-9. The Accounts Officer (Estt.) further informed the applicant that action in his case would be taken only upon specific directions from a competent Court. A copy of the said letter is produced as Annexure A-10.
6. The applicant submits that he is entitled to fixation of pay in the replacement IDA scale on par with his juniors, as the disparity is a clear case of anomaly arising from point-to-point fixation. The respondents are bound to rectify such anomalies and grant stepping up of pay in accordance with settled principles of service jurisprudence. The inaction of the respondents is in direct contravention of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh Grewal & Anr. vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr., (2009) 3 SCC 94, wherein it has been held that seniors cannot be placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis their juniors in matters of pay. It is further submitted that several judicial A S Peethambaran 2026.04.02 13:01:57+05'30' -8- pronouncements granting relief to identically placed employees have been brought to the notice of the respondents. The consistent view taken by Courts is that seniors drawing lesser pay than their juniors due to anomalies in pay fixation are entitled to parity through stepping up of pay. Therefore, the denial of similar relief to the applicant alone amounts to arbitrary and discriminatory treatment, violative of the principles of equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
7. In the reply statement filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.1-3, they have contended that the comparison drawn by the applicant with his junior, Shri.Mohanbabu, is misconceived and untenable. It is submitted that the applicant had been promoted to the post of Telecom Mechanic prior to 01.10.2000 and, therefore, was not holding the post of Lineman as on the said date. In contrast, the said Shri.Mohanbabu, though initially appointed as Lineman on 04.05.1977, continued to hold the said post as on 01.10.2000 and was promoted to the post of Telecom Mechanic only on 20.02.2002. Accordingly, the applicant belonged to the cadre of Telecom Mechanic (Group 'C'), whereas the said junior continued in the Lineman cadre (Group 'D') as on the relevant date, each A S Peethambaran 2026.04.02 13:01:57+05'30' -9- having separate seniority and distinct pay scales. It is further submitted that since the applicant and the said individual were holding posts in different cadres with separate channels of promotion, their pay cannot be equated or compared. The respondents assert that pay fixation and progression depend upon the length of service in the respective cadres, and therefore, variation in pay between different individuals is both natural and justified.
8. The respondents have further submitted that the applicant's grievance that Shri.Mohanbabu, a junior, was drawing higher pay is factually incorrect. It is stated that Shri.Mohanbabu was drawing a basic pay of Rs.4050/- in the CDA scale of Rs.3200-85-4900 with ten increments, and accordingly, on conversion to the IDA scale of Rs.4720- 150-6970, his pay was fixed at Rs.6220/- by granting ten increments on a point-to-point basis in the Group 'D' cadre. On the other hand, the applicant was drawing a basic pay of Rs.4100/- in the CDA scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 with one increment, and consequently, his pay was fixed at Rs.5860/- in the IDA scale of Rs.5700-160-8100 with one increment in the Group 'C' cadre.
A S Peethambaran 2026.04.02 13:01:57+05'30' -10-
9. The respondents contend that the pay fixation of the applicant has been correctly carried out in accordance with the applicable rules, and there is no error warranting revision. It is further submitted that Shri.Mohanbabu, though junior in the present cadre of Telecom Mechanic, had earned a greater number of increments during his longer service in the lower cadre and such increments legitimately accrued to his benefit upon pay fixation. Accordingly, the respondents assert that the disparity is not the result of any irregularity in the application of Fundamental Rules, but is a natural consequence of point-to-point fixation during the transition from CDA to IDA scales. Therefore, the difference in pay cannot be construed as an anomaly requiring rectification. A true copy of O.M. dated 04/11/1993 of DOPT explaining stepping up, what are anomalies and what are not anomalies is produced as Annexure R2(a), wherein the conditions prescribed for stepping up of the pay of a seniors to that of a junior is as follows :
"(a) Both the Junior and Senior should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted or appointed should be identical and in the same cadre.
(b) The scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which the junior and senior are entitled to draw pay should be identical.
A S Peethambaran 2026.04.02 13:01:57+05'30' -11-
(c) The anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of FR 22-C. For example, if even in the lower post the junior officer draws from time to time a higher rate of pay than the senior by virtue of grant of advance increments or on any other account the above provisions will not be invoked to step up the pay of senior officer."
10. The respondents further contend that stepping up of pay is not permissible under the applicable rules in the present case. It is submitted that although the applicant and Shri.Mohanbabu are presently in the same cadre, their promotions were effected in different scales and at different points of time. It is reiterated that, as on the relevant date, they were holding posts in different cadres with distinct pay scales. The disparity in pay has arisen on account of such differences in cadre, scale, and timing of promotion. Therefore, since the applicant and the said individual were not promoted in identical scales nor situated similarly at the relevant time, the essential conditions for stepping up of pay are not satisfied. Accordingly, the respondents assert that stepping up of pay is not admissible in the present case under the extant rules.
11. It is further submitted that, for a disparity to qualify as an "anomaly", it must arise directly as a consequence of the application of Fundamental Rule 22. In the present case, the respondents contend that A S Peethambaran 2026.04.02 13:01:57+05'30' -12- any difference in pay between the applicant and his junior is not attributable to the operation of Fundamental Rule 22, but rather to the point-to-point fixation method adopted during the conversion from Central Dearness Allowance (CDA) scales to Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) scales. It is submitted that the fixation of pay under the IDA pattern was governed by specific orders issued by BSNL Headquarters pursuant to a negotiated settlement with the recognized unions, and not by the Fundamental Rules. Therefore, the provisions of FR 22(1)(a)(1) are inapplicable in the present context. The respondents further state that FR 22(1)(a)(1) permits stepping up of pay only when both the senior and junior belong to the same cadre, are promoted to identical posts carrying identical pay scales and the anomaly arises directly from the application of the said rule. The said provision cannot be invoked where the junior draws higher pay due to advance increments earned in a lower cadre. It is also submitted that the pay scales underwent revisions with effect from 01.10.2000 and 01.01.2007 and necessary instructions were issued by BSNL on 30.08.2010 to address instances of juniors drawing higher pay after pay revision. The respondents emphasize that the transition with effect from 01.10.2000 A S Peethambaran 2026.04.02 13:01:57+05'30' -13- was merely a conversion from CDA to IDA scales and not a pay revision per se. Hence, the alleged disparity does not constitute an anomaly within the meaning of FR 22.
12. The respondents also submit that an Anomaly Committee constituted earlier had examined such issues and made recommendations for redressal of grievances. Further, reliance is placed on Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which provides that a settlement arrived at between the employer and workmen, otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceedings, shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. It is contended that the pay fixation methodology under the IDA pattern was implemented pursuant to such a settlement entered into between BSNL and the recognized unions. Therefore, the applicant, who has not challenged the validity of the said agreement, is bound by its terms and cannot now contend that its implementation has resulted in an anomaly. Since the settlement is binding on all employees, including the applicant, the respondents assert that the claim for revision of pay on the alleged ground of anomaly is not maintainable.
A S Peethambaran 2026.04.02 13:01:57+05'30' -14-
13. The 4th respondent filed a brief reply statement wherein it has been stated that the applicant is an employee of BSNL and the management of BSNL is completely free to decide and finalize its administrative matters. The 4th respondent has no role on the subject matter since there is no employer-employee relationship existing between the applicant and the Union of India, Department of Telecom. Hence, they are not a proper or necessary party in the O.A.
14. The applicant has produced the decision in BSNL vs. K.K.Vijayan, (2025) KHC Online 10790 wherein on the questions whether pay anomaly in BSNL where juniors drew higher salaries than seniors due to pay scale conversion as also employees promoted to the same cadre are entitled to pay stepping up when a junior colleague draws higher pay despite being promoted later, it has been held that when both employees are promoted to the same cadre and hold identical posts, the word 'junior' relates to promotion date rather than initial appointment date, and employees promoted earlier cannot be termed junior to those promoted later, thus entitling them to pay stepping up under the prescribed conditions.
A S Peethambaran 2026.04.02 13:01:57+05'30' -15-
15. On the other hand, the respondents produced order in O.A.No.180/498/2015 & O.A.No.180/806/2015 in the case of Nagappan Nair & Ors. vs. BSNL & Ors., and submitted that the aforementioned order would hold the field. Therefore, the applicant was not entitled since he did not fullfil the condition under FR 22 for stepping up. Paragraphs 13 and 14 reads as follow -
"13. In the above context, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in "Masan Ali son of Sri Hamid and Ors V. Union of India (UOI) decided on 16 November 2007 held "Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 clearly provides that settlement arrived at by means of agreement in between employer and the workers otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. The respondents do not dispute that there is agreement and it is binding on them. If the settlement is between the employer and the workmen it would be binding on that particular employee and the employer, if it is between a recognized union of the employees and the employer, it will bind all the members of the union and the employer. That it would be binding of all the members of the union is a necessary corollary of collective bargaining in the absence allegation of malafides or fraud.
14. In the case of Herbertsons Limited v. The Workmen of Herbertsons Ltd and Others reported in 1976 (4) SCC 36, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the effect of the settlement arrived at by the recognized union of majority workers. It was observed by Goswami J., speaking for the Court that when a recognised union negotiates with an employer, the workers as individuals A S Peethambaran 2026.04.02 13:01:57+05'30' -16- do not come into the picture. It is not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognized union, which is expected to protect the legitimate interest of labour. enters into a settlement in the best interest of labour. This would be the normal rule. It was further observed that it is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad. Unless it can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other advantages gained, the Court will be slow to hold a settlement as unfair and unjust. Therefore, the settlement has to be accepted or rejected as a whole.
15. At the time of fixation of pay under IDA, the applicant had already been promoted to the cadre of Telecom Mechanic prior to 01.10.2000 and her pay was fixed in the IDA scale of pay Shri.T.O.Varghese became Telecom Mechanic only with effect from 06.11.2002 much after the applicant. Hence both these employees are in two categories as on 30.09.2000, and cannot be compared. Comparison can be made only with equals. The applicant and the persons who are promoted after the promotion of the applicant cannot be categorised as one group. The drawing of equal pay can be compared only for the employees who are from the same category and their service incidents also happened on the same day."
16. It had been very strongly argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that all the case laws cited by the applicant were per incuriam, the decision in the Nagappan Nair (supra) which has become final as also the outcome of the misreading of the Hon'ble Supreme Court A S Peethambaran 2026.04.02 13:01:57+05'30' -17- decision in Gurcharan Singh (supra) where it has been very clearly laid down that the circumstances under which stepping up can happen under FR 22 or any parallel rule position in the rules which have to be met prior to consideration of an application for stepping up on junior-senior basis. We are in complete agreement with the learned counsel for the respondents on the manner of reading the Nagappan Nair (supra) and Gurcharan Singh (supra) cases. However, we would like to point out that in this instance although the primary condition for stepping up did not exist in the pay regulation between CDA and IDA pay scales, but by May, 2010 both applicant and his junior were in an identical post and pay scale with no disputes regarding the interse seniority between the two and hence the primary conditions laid down under FR 22 are met at that particular point of time and need to be taken into consideration for answering the issues raised in this particular case.
17. The anomaly initially arose because of the conversion of the pay scale in the point to point conversion from CDA to IDA and at that particular point of time the primary condition under FR 22 for stepping up of pay were admittedly not met. However, we do notice that the A S Peethambaran 2026.04.02 13:01:57+05'30' -18- admitted juniors from May 2010 onwards were in the same scale of pay of Rs.12520-23440 and were drawing higher pay than their seniors. At that point of time both the applicant and his juniors met the conditions set out in FR 22 for stepping up of pay. So from that date when both the applicant and his juniors were admittedly in the same pay scale and junior Shri.Mohanbabu was admittedly the junior, the applicant was certainly entitled to stepping up of pay. The stand of the respondents in this case holds neither by equity nor by law here as that is not a circumstance which has been addressed by the order in Nagappan Nair (supra) which talks primarily of the fact that the applicant and the junior in that case were neither in the same scale of pay nor holding the same post and were therefore not comparable for the purposes of meeting the conditions for stepping up under FR 22. Given the fact that from the date of promotion of the junior into the same pay scale and post as the applicant, the applicant was drawing lesser pay than his junior he would be entitled for stepping up of pay from that date. The 3 rd respondent is, therefore, directed to take necessary action for refixation of the pay of the applicant from the time both the applicant and his junior were placed in the same post and the pay scale and calculate the differential amount due A S Peethambaran 2026.04.02 13:01:57+05'30' -19- to the applicant as also revise the pension and pensionary benefits based on such refixation. However, arrears will be limited to a period of three years from the date of filing of the O.A in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648. The order is to be implemented within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, interest at the rate of 6% will be payable to the applicant.
18. Before parting we would like to deprecate the attitude of the 3 rd respondent in this instance where having accepted the anamoly in principle, they continue to drive individual employee to Court on an issue which has already been settled by this forum on multiple occasions.
19. In the light of the above, the O.A is disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2026)
V.RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
asp
A S Peethambaran 2026.04.02 13:01:57+05'30'
-20-
List of Annexures in O.A.No.180/00003/2020
1. Annexure A-1 - A copy of the office order No.BSNL/26/SR/2002 dated 07.08.2002 issued by the 1st respondent,BSNL.
2. Annexure A-2 - A copy of the comparative statement of the officials Mr.K.P.Ramakrishnan with that of his junior, Shri.Mohanbabu.
3. Annexure A-3 - A copy of the judgment in O.A.No.688/2012 dated 09.01.2013.
4. Annexure A-4 - A copy of the judgment in O.A.No.848/2017 dated 24.10.2017.
5. Annexure A-5 - A copy of the order of Accounts Officer, O/o.General Manager, Telecom Calicut dated 18.01.2018.
6. Annexure A-6 - A copy of the letter of Accounts Officer Pension, BSNL, Calicut dated 12.09.2018.
7. Annexure A-7 - A copy of the letter by Accounts Officer Pension dated 02.08.2019.
8. Annexure A-8 - A copy of the representation filed by the applicant dated 27.09.2019.
9. Annexure A-9 - A copy of the letter by the Accounts Officer (Estt.), O/o.the GMT, BSNL, Calicut dated 11.10.2019.
10. Annexure A-10 - A copy of the letter from Accounts Officer (Estt.), O/o.the GMT, BSNL, Calicut dated 08.11.2019.
11. Annexure R-2(a) - A copy of the O.M.No.4/7/92-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 04.11.1993 of Department of Personnel and Training.
_______________________________ A S Peethambaran 2026.04.02 13:01:57+05'30'