Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
R Vijayan vs Bsnl on 26 August, 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A. No.180/00170/2022
Tuesday, this the 26th day of August, 2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
R. Vijayan, Aged 75, S/o. K. Raghavan, Staff No. 11016
Retired Divisional Engineer (Telecom), BSNL, Kollam SSA
Kerala Circle, Residing at Ushus, Vadamon P.O.
Anchal, Kollam 691 306. -Applicant
[By Advocate: Mr. Vishnu S Chempazhanthiyil]
Versus
1. The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Corporate Office, Bharat Sanchar
Bhavan, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane, Janpat, New Delhi, 110 001,
represented by its Chairman and Managing Director.
2. The Controller of Communication Accounts, Kerala Door Sanjar Bhavan,
Ministry of Communications, Government of India, Department of
Telecommunications, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.
3. Assistant Controller of Communication Accounts, Office of the Controller
of Communication Accounts, Kerala Door Sanjar Bhavan, Ministry of
Communications, Government of India, Department of
Telecommunications, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.
4. The Senior Accounts Office (Pension Revision), Kerala Door Sanjar
Bhavan, Ministry of Communications, Government of India, Department
of Telecommunications, Thiruvananthapuram -695 033.
5. The Chief General Manager Telecom, Kerala Circle, Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033. -Respondents
[By Advocates : Mr.George Kuruvila for R1 & R5 to R7,
Mr.M.N.Manmadan, SCGSC for R2 to R4]
DEEPA S 2025.08.26 12:54:12+05'30'
O.A.No.180/170/2022 2
The application having been heard on 11.08.2025, the Tribunal on
26.08.2025 delivered the following:
ORDER
Applicant commenced his official career in the Department of Telecom in 1971 as Junior Telecom Officer. He was promoted to the cadre of Sub Divisional Engineer in the year 1990. According to him, the next promotion was in the cadre of Divisional Engineer, which was due in 2003. Though not granted regular promotion as Divisional Engineer, he was placed as officiating/ adhoc Divisional Engineer in 2003. The BSNL was formed on 01.10.2000. He was absorbed in the BSNL, and after putting in long period of service, he retired from service on 31.01.2007. He is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in settling his grievance regarding time bound upgradation in STS.
2. The applicant was given promotion to the post of Divisional Engineer in 2003. The BSNL has Time Bound Promotion Scheme for the executives. He retired in the scale of Rs.14500-350-18700 with basic pay of Rs.18,700/- and accordingly, pension was fixed. Referring to Annexure-A1, it is submitted that after about 16 months of the retirement, he was granted a Time Bound Promotion at the scale of Rs.16000-400-20800 and fixed his pay at DEEPA S 2025.08.26 12:54:12+05'30' O.A.No.180/170/2022 3 Rs.19,200/. Accordingly, the pension was also re-fixed, he was paid an amount of Rs.12,400/- towards balance of arrears of leave encashment in revision of Industrial Dearness Allowance pay in replacement of the existing IDA pay scale. He was also paid Rs.114/- towards pay fixation arrears with effect from 28.01.2007 to 31.01.2007. Time Bound Promotion was granted with effect from 28.01.2007, three days prior to his retirement on 31.01.2007. Meanwhile, from 01.01.2007 onwards pay revision was effected in the organisation. Accordingly, his pay was revised from Rs.18,700/- to Rs.41,040/-. Consequent to grant of Time Bound Promotion, the pay was revised to Rs.42,280/- with effect from 28.01.2007. While so, quite unexpectedly, as per Annexure-A5 order dated 21.09.2010, downward revision was made in the pay fixing at Rs.18,700/- and his revised basic pay was made at Rs.41,040/-. Though he made representation on 28.04.2009, it was not positively responded. Thereafter, he again represented on 29.10.2021 and now he has approached the Tribunal seeking to quash reduction of pay and pension nullifying Annexures-A1 and A2, for a direction to the respondents to release the pension arrears based on pension due under Annexures-A1 and A2 and to grant all consequential monetary benefits, to declare that he is entitled to have his pay and pension regulated in terms of Annexures-A1 and A2 and to give DEEPA S 2025.08.26 12:54:12+05'30' O.A.No.180/170/2022 4 directions to the respondents accordingly, to direct the respondents to give necessary clarifications as sought for by the BSNL Unit in Kerala and to settle the grievances raised by the applicant and to direct the respondents to grant interest at the rate of 8% on belated pension arrears.
3. According to the applicant, tinkering Annexures-A1 and A2 is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional. It has been done in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. The pay and allowances of the applicant is his property and deprivation of the same without authority of law is in violation of his rights under Article 300A of the Constitution. The applicant also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme court has held in number of cases that deprivation of pay and pension of a Government servant amounts to violation of Article 300A. The Pension Rules prohibits revision of pension of Government servant to his disadvantage. There is no mistake or defect whatsoever in fixing the pay of the applicant at Rs.19,200/- on grant of time bound promotion, along with grant of similar promotion to his juniors. It is highly discriminatory that his juniors were granted higher pay and allowances whereas he had to retire at a lower pay and therefore, both Annexures-A1 and A2 are liable to be restored.
4. Respondents 2 to 4 filed reply statement denying the contentions DEEPA S 2025.08.26 12:54:12+05'30' O.A.No.180/170/2022 5 of the applicant and opposing the prayers. Respondents 1 and 5 to 7 filed a separate reply statement almost on the same lines.
5. According to the respondents 2 to 4, after the formation of the BSNL on 01.10.2000, an executive promotion policy was adopted in 2007, however, effective from 2000. They have produced the policy, marked as Annexure-R2(A). According to them, as per provisions in Annexure-R2(A), he was entitled to get time bound promotion only after five years of his adhoc promotion on 28.01.2003. In other words, his time bound promotion after five years should have been effected only on 28.01.2008. However, by mistake, under Annexure-A1 such a promotion was granted from 28.01.2007 which mistake was found out only later. Annexure-A5 was issued after realising this mistake and there was no discrimination on the part of the respondents. In other words, the contention of the respondents is that Annexures-A1 and A2 were issued by mistake, in violation of the promotion policy as under
Annexure-R2(A) and the clarification under Annexure-R2(B). On realising the same, the matter was referred to the General Manager, Telecom, Kollam, under whom the applicant was working and on getting service details of the applicant, Annexure-A5 was issued and now the applicant has challenged only annulling of Annexures-A1 and A2. He has not challenged Anenxure-A5 or DEEPA S 2025.08.26 12:54:12+05'30' O.A.No.180/170/2022 6 Annexure-R2(B) and therefore, such a contention is incorrect.
6 Respondents 2 to 4 contended that the error can be corrected at any point of time and it cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. There is no illegality. An erroneous fixation of pay consequent to the grant of time bound scale upgradation before its due, which is in violation of the policy cannot be prevented from being corrected. Consequential fixation of pension is, therefore, not illegal. They also have placed reliance on the decisions in State of Odisha and others v. Anup Kumar Senapati and others [(2019) 19 SCC 626]. Referring to P.Singaravelan and others. v. The District Collector, Tiruppur and others. [(2020) 3 SCC 133], it is submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity and Article 14 cannot be taken to their rescue. So, they prayed for dismissing the O.A.
7. Reply filed by respondents 1 and 5 to 7 is also on the same lines. It is pointed out by them that the applicant has sought for restoring Annexures- A1 and A2 without seeking to set aside Annexure-A5, which is illegal. Annexure-A5 revised fixation was done after realizing the mistake crept in his fixation of pay and pension. The contention that his pension was reduced to his disadvantage is not permissible in law. Applicant is not entitled for amounts, which are not legally due to him. An error can be corrected at any DEEPA S 2025.08.26 12:54:12+05'30' O.A.No.180/170/2022 7 point of time and it cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. Regarding the contention that his junior was given higher pay is denied. The junior was given time bound promotion before her retirement in absolute compliance of Annexure-R2(A) policy and its clarification. The respondents also have relied on the decision in Indian Council of Agricultural Research and another v. T.K. Suryanarayan and others [(1997) 6 SCC 766].
8. Applicant filed rejoinders and the respondents filed additional replies and the contentions are in reiteration of the earlier averments stated supra.
9. I heard Sri. Vishnu S Chempazhanthiyil, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.George Kuruvila, learned Standing Counsel for the BSNL as well as Sri. M.N.Manmadan, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.
10. It is not disputed that the applicant had started his career as a Junior Telecom Officer in 1971 and was promoted as Sub Divisional Engineer in 1990 and then as Divisional Engineer in 2003. By the time he was made officiating adhoc/Divisional Engineer in 2003, the BSNL was formed. On formation of the BSNL he was absorbed in the new organisation and therefore, the policies adopted by the BSNL are applicable to him. It is also not disputed DEEPA S 2025.08.26 12:54:12+05'30' O.A.No.180/170/2022 8 that an executive promotion policy was adopted by the BSNL with effect from 01.10.2000, the date of its formation. Anenxure-R2(A) is the said time bound/post based executive promotional policy for Group-B level officers of the BSNL.
11. At the outset, the following provisions of Anenxure-R2(A) have to be highlighted. Under the time bound IDA scale upgradation policy, upgradation shall be provided to the Executives from pay scale of Rs.9850- 14600 upto scale of JAG Selection Grade (Rs.17500-22,300). Its eligibility is the date on which the Executive fulfills the qualifying service conditions for upgradation to the next higher IDA pay scale as defined in sub- paragraph 3, as extracted below:
"3. Qualifying Service Conditions:
3.1 FIRST Upgradation: The FIRST UPGRADATION of IDA Scale of individual Executive will be due for consideration on completion of 4 (Four) years of Service in the current IDA scale subject to the condition that the Executive's basic pay in the current IDA scale has crossed / touched the lowest of the higher IDA scale for which his / her upgradation is to be considered OR he / she has completed 6 (Six) years of service in the current IDA scale, whichever is earlier. 3.2 SUBSEQUENT Upgradation: The subsequent upgradation of IDA scale to the next higher IDA scale will be due on DEEPA S 2025.08.26 12:54:12+05'30' O.A.No.180/170/2022 9 completion of 5 (Five) years of service in the current IDA scale."
12. Similarly, paragraph I(d)(7) reads thus:
"7. Since the first review under Executive upgradation policy is to be made with reference to 01.10.2004, any upgradation due to the Executive on or before 01.10.2004 based on earlier time bound policies, such upgradation will be granted to the executive on the basis of options as ONE TIME RELAXATION if he/she is willing for such promotion and adjudged fit in accordance with concerned regulatory conditions. OPTIONS ONCE EXERCISED, SHALL BE FINAL. The subsequent eligibility for IDA pay scale upgradation of such Executives will be governed by BSNL's Time Bound Upgradation scheme as provided in Para 1(I) (b) (3.2) above."
13. That means, an executive is entitled to get time bound promotion on completion of four years of service in the current IDA subject to the condition that the executive's basic pay in the current IDA scale has crossed/touched the lowest of the higher IDA scale for which his upgradation is to be considered or he has completed six years of service. The subsequent upgradation of IDA scale to the next higher IDA scale will be due on completion of five years of service in the current IDA scale.
14. In the case of the applicant, what is applicable is clause 3.2. I have DEEPA S 2025.08.26 12:54:12+05'30' O.A.No.180/170/2022 10 already noticed that the applicant was promoted as Divisional Engineer on 28.01.2003. So, guided by Annexure-R2(A) I(b)(3.2) he was entitled to get time bound promotion in the IDA scale after completion of five years from the date of grant of promotion as Divisional Engineer. That means, it is simply clear that he should have been granted higher grade promotion only on completion of five years, that is on 28.01.2008. But before completing five years, he retired from service on 31.01.2007. But, by mistake, Annexures-A1 and A2 were issued which were, on realisation of the mistake, corrected through Annexure- A5 issued on 21.09.2010.
15. To put it again, Annexures-A1 and A2 were issued under mistaken notion. He should not have been granted higher pay at Rs.19,200/- or the pay revision in the corresponding scale which was effective from 01.01.2007 and therefore, both Annexures-A1 and A2 were issued under misconception which were later corrected through Annexure-A5, which alone had happened in this case.
16. As noticed earlier, even though after the issue of Annexure-A5 on 21.09.2010 he had submitted one representation, Annexure-A10 was submitted only on 29.01.2021, after a decade and reason for raking up such a stale matter is not understandable. It is very patent that Annexure-A6 was DEEPA S 2025.08.26 12:54:12+05'30' O.A.No.180/170/2022 11 submitted before passing Annexure-A5.
17. It is true that after giving him time bound promotion with effect from 28.01.2007 and also fixing his salary based on pay revision effective from 01.01.2007, his pay was fixed upwards. He was also granted arrears of leave encashment on revision of IDA, besides pay fixation arrears were disbursed to him. Everything was done after his retirement on 31.01.2007. Now, basing on Annexure-R2(A) promotion policy, the respondents subsequently realised that he was entitled to get time bound promotion only after five years from his date of appointment as Divisional Engineer. But, by mistake, he was granted benefit after four years. On realising the mistake his pay was fixed, naturally downward fixation was warranted, done under Annexure-A5. But, till this day, no recovery step has been initiated, for recovering amounts granted under Annexure-A3 or Annexure-A4. But the applicant contends that nullification of Annexures-A1 and A2 is illegal and arbitrary, which was done in violation of the principles of natural justice without giving him opportunity of being heard etc. He claims that the salary and allowances are his property under Article 300A of the Constitution and it was illegal to make a downward fixation.
18. I have already extracted relevant clauses of Annexure-R2(A) promotion policy. Annexure-R2(B) is the clarification issued by the BSNL as on DEEPA S 2025.08.26 12:54:12+05'30' O.A.No.180/170/2022 12 various points/issues relating to implementation of the Executive Promotion Policy. In clause 5, the question was 'what is the residency period, four years or five years', in the category held by JAO/JTO and AO/SDE. In reply, it has been stated thus:
"Residency period of 4 to 6 yrs have been prescribed for 1 st Time bound promotion as per para [1.0][I][b][3.1] of EPP vide OM dtd 18-1- 07 and subsequently reiterated vide this office Itr dtd 30-5-07. Separate hierarchy has been prescribed in the Executive Promotion Policy (EPP) for Time Bound and Post based promotions. Time period of 4 to 6 yrs for 1st and 5 yrs for subsequent Time Bound Promotions has been prescribed. As the pay grades of AAO/JTO(LA) and Sr.AO/Sr.SDE have not been treated as post based substantive grades under Executive Promotion Policy, promotions to these pay grades granted between 1-10-2000 to 30-9-2004 are to be treated as 1 st time bound promotions only and subsequent promotion to such executives will be due after 5 yrs from date of such upgradation. However, this provision has to be applied under option vide para [1.0][1][d] [7], treating it as 1st Time bound scale upgradation."
19. Similarly, in clause 10, the question posed was 'how to regulate time bound promotion in cases where regular post based promotions have been given between 01.10.2000 to 01.10.2004'. In reply, the BSNL gave the following clarification:
"If any executive has got post based promotion between 1-10-2000 DEEPA S 2025.08.26 12:54:12+05'30' O.A.No.180/170/2022 13 and 30-9-2004, as per hierarchy levels mentioned in para [1][II][i] under Executive Promotion Policy issued vide this office OM No.18-01- 2007, the executive concerned would be considered for his/her 1 st Time Bound Scale Upgradation as per para[1][I][b][3.1] of EPP dtd 18- 1-07. It is also further clarified that if any executive has got time bound scale upgradation (including ACP/LA) during 1-10-2000 to 30- 9-2004, it would be treated as his 1 st time bound scale upgradation and subsequent upgradation would be considered after 5 yrs. (read with clarification at Sl.No.5 above)."
20. From the above, it is beyond doubt that for getting time bound promotion for a Divisional Engineer, residency period is five years. In other words, for acquiring time bound promotion, one should have held the post for five years from the date of appointment. The applicant was appointed as Divisional Engineer on 28.01.2003 and would complete five years only on 20.08.2008. But before completing five years he retired from service on superannuation on 31.01.2007. Therefore, he was not entitled to get time bound promotion as granted through Annexure-A1. Later, this mistake stands undone through Annexure-A5 notification dated 21.09.2010.
21. It is evident that in case of many other employees, such mistakes had happened as evident from Annexure-R5(a). The name of the applicant appears as serial No.4 in Annexure B. DEEPA S 2025.08.26 12:54:12+05'30' O.A.No.180/170/2022 14
22. The contention of the applicant that his junior was given higher pay and he has been discriminated has not been pursued, realising that the junior was granted higher pay after the retirement of the applicant and on completing the required residency period. Similarly, the argument based on Rule 70 of the CCS(Pension) Rules also cannot be upheld since the time bound promotion and consequent fixation were the result of mistake in reckoning the residency period.
23. After considering materials and hearing arguments on both sides, I do not find any reason to find fault with Anenxures-A5 and R5(a). Annexures- A5 and R5(a) have not been called in question. It was after detailed study by the concerned circle, those communications were issued. Annexure-A5 was served on him, but the correctness of the communication is not the subject matter of dispute in this O.A. The applicant has no case that before issuing Annexures-A1 and A2, he had completed five years residency period as Divisional Engineer.
24. The learned counsel for the applicant wanted to say that disregarding Annexures-A1 and A2 and consequent downward revision of pay is violative of Article 300A of the Constitution. But, as rightly pointed out by DEEPA S 2025.08.26 12:54:12+05'30' O.A.No.180/170/2022 15 the respondents, the applicant can claim only the benefits what is due to him. He would have entitled to get the benefits of time bound promotion only after putting in five years residency period in his cadre. That would complete only on 28.01.2008. Before that, since he retired on superannuation his claim for upgradation has lost. The respondents were only undoing the mistake committed by them. In the process, there is no deprivation of any pension legally due to him and therefore, he cannot take shelter under Article 300A of the Constitution.
25. Learned counsel for the applicant could not bring out any provision which has been infringed by the respondents while issuing Annexures-A5/R5(a). If such a revisit was not done, that would have incurred the BSNL huge additional recurring expenses by way of pension to the applicant, which was not due to him. In effect, they were averting such a contingency after realising the mistake in granting higher pay to the applicant.
26. He was granted higher pay under Annexures-A1 and A2 by mistake, overlooking the fact that he had not completed five years of service as Divisional Engineer. The act of the respondents in re-fixing his pay after realising the mistake cannot be faulted.
DEEPA S 2025.08.26 12:54:12+05'30' O.A.No.180/170/2022 16 The Original Application lacks merits and dismissed. However, it is made clear that the respondents are not entitled to recover amounts already disbursed, consequent to the issue of Annexures-A1 and A2. No costs.
(Dated, this the 26th August, 2025)
JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
JUDICIAL MEMBER
ds
DEEPA S 2025.08.26 12:54:12+05'30'
O.A.No.180/170/2022 17
List of Annexures
Annexure A1: True copy of Order No. Q-72/11/87 dated 08.05.2008 issued by the Accounts Officer (PC), Office of General Manager, Telecom Department,BSNL,Kollam. Annexure A2: True copy of letter No.Pay Fixation/IDA Revision/Executives/146 dated 23.3.2009 issued by the Accounts Officer in the Office of the GMTD Kollam.
Annexure A3: True copy of Order No. EC-I/Bills/08-09/9 dated 29.05.2009 issued by the Assistant General Manager (Administration), Office of the General Manager, Telecom Department, BSNL, Kollam.
Annexure A4: True copy of Order No. Q-1320/Pen/06-07/26 dated 04.07.2008 issued by the Assistant General Manager (Administration), Office of the General Manager, Telecom Department, BSNL, Kollam.
Annexure A5: True copy of Order No. Q-72/II dated 21.09.2010 issued by the 6th respondent Annexure A6: True copy of complaint dated 28.04.2009 of the Applicant to the 2nd respondent Annexure A7: True copy of letter No.CCA/KRL/C-599/2006- 07/741 dated 1.7.2021 issued by the Office of 2nd respondent. Annexure A8: True copy of letter No.CCA/KRL/C-599/2006-07 dated 7.9.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent.
DEEPA S 2025.08.26 12:54:12+05'30' O.A.No.180/170/2022 18 Annexure A9: True copy of communication No.CCA/KRL/C- 599/2006-07/814 dated 11.10.2021 of the 3 rd Respondent to the applicant.
Annexure A10: True copy of representation dated 29.10.2021 of the Applicant to the 3rd respondent Annexure A11: True copy of the Order No.ST-G/TBP/DE& DGMs/2007-08/11 dated 15.04.2008 issued by the Deputy General Manager, O/o. General Manager, Telecom District, BSNL Bhavan, Vellatitamblam, Kollam.
*** Annexure R2(A): True copy of O.M. 400-61/2004-Pers.I dated 18.01.2007 on the time bound/post based executive promotion policy for Group 'B' level officers of BSNL Annexure R2(B): True copy of the clarification issued by the BSNL Corporate office on Ann.R2(A) policy, as per letter No.400- 175/2007-Pers.1 dated 19.02.2010 Annexure R2(C): True copy of Letter No. Q-1320/Pen/08-09/86 dated 04.08.2009 issued by the 7th respondent Annexure R2(D): True copy of the letter No.CCA/KRL/1-3/C- 599/06-07 dated 02.09.2010 of the 2nd respondent Annexure R2(E): True copy of letter No.Q-1320/Pen/06-07/47 dated 24.09.2010 of the 7th respondent Annexure R2(F): True copy of Original PPO issued on 02.02.2007 DEEPA S 2025.08.26 12:54:12+05'30' O.A.No.180/170/2022 19 Annexure R2(G): True copy of revised PPO issued on 03.02.2010 Annexure R2(H): True copy of Revised PPO issued on 08.10.2010 Annexure R2(I): True copy of Revised PPO issued on 02.03.2017 Annexure R2(J): True copy of Office Order No.1-50/2008-PAT (BSNL) dated 05.03.2009 issued by BSNL Corporate Office *** Annexure R5(a): True copy of the order of the BSNL Circle Office dated 15/04/2010 Annexure-MR1:-True copy of the order No.ST-III/TBP/STS- JAG/2008/2 dated 3.4.2008 Annexure-MR2:-True copy of the letter dated 17.9.2021 of the Accounts Officer (Estt) BSNL, Kollam ******* DEEPA S 2025.08.26 12:54:12+05'30'