Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Ritika Bhumra vs M/O Defence on 26 November, 2025
1 (OA 060/280/2020)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A. No. 60/280/2020
Reserved on: 26.11.2025
Pronounced on: 19.12.2025
CORAM : HON'BLE SH. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)
1. Ritika Bhumra D/o Sh. Ajit Singh Bhumrah, aged 32 years, working as
Telephone Operator, O/o Commandant, 9 FOD, Kandrori (Pathankot)-
144001.
2. Charu Sharma D/o Sh. Vijay Sharma, aged 27 years, working as
Telephone Operator, O/o Commandant, 17 FAD, Ludhiana (Punjab) 141001.
3. Sukhjinder Singh S/o Sh. Jagtar Singh, aged 35 years, working as
Telephone Operator, O/o Commandant, 223, Advance Base Ordnance Depot-
909718.
4. Binay Kumar S/o Sh. Kirhu Ram Chaudhary, working as Telephone
Operator O/o Commandant, 18 Field Ammunition Depot FAD, 56 APO-
909718.
...Applicants
(BY ADVOCATE: MR. K.B. SHARMA)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South
Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Director General of Ord Services (OS-8C), MGO's Branch, IHQ of
MoD (Army), New Delhi-110001.
3. The OIC Records, AOC Records, PIN-900453 C/o 56 APO.
4. Commandant, 9 FOD, Kandrori (Pathankot)-144001.
...Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE: MS. SWATI ARORA)
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana
Vanapalli
SatyanarDN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9b
b734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77,
ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN,
SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453
dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=
Vanapalli
Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:10:08+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
2 (OA 060/280/2020)
ORDER
Per: HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A):
1. This O.A has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) Directing the respondents to place the relevant records pertaining to the present OA before their Lordships for the proper adjudication in the matter in the interest of justice.
(b) Quash and setting aside the impugned order dated 06.08.2019 (Annexure A/11), Annexure A/9 dated 22.05.2019 and Annexure A/10 dated 25.07.2019 and the respondents be directed to restore the revised pay scale and designation that had already been granted to the applicants, Telephone Operator in AOC vide respondents order dated 12.06.2013 with all consequential benefits.
(c) That it be declared that the applicants are entitled to pay scale of Rs.5200-20,200 + GP of Rs.2000/- (Pre-revised Rs.3200-
4900/-) in view of judicial pronouncements titled as Swaran Kaur & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors., OA No.675/PB/2005 decided on 31.08.2006 Yoginder Kumar & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. OA No.3443/2009, dated 24.09.2010, Vinod Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors., OA No.3709/2011, dated 30.03.2013, Mohd. Ismail & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. OA No.393/PB/2010 decided on 26.07.2010.
(d) Allowing the OA of the applicants with cost etc."
2. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicants are as follows:
I. The applicants on initial appointment of the Civilian Switch Board Operator were granted the pay scale of Rs.260-480/-, only the nomenclature of the post was given as Civilian Switch Board Operator but they were similarly placed as that of Telephone Operators working in the Post & Telegraph Department. Earlier the respondents had tried to withdraw the pay scale of Rs.260-480/- which was granted to CSBOs vide letter dated 22.08.1972 of Ministry of Defence as their work and duties were similar to Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli SatyanarDN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9b b734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453 dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Vanapalli Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:10:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
3 (OA 060/280/2020) those performed by the Telephone Operators in the Posts and Telegraphs Department.
II. Some CSBOs had filed O.A.No.239/HR/1993 and the Tribunal vide order dated 23.08.1993 had dismissed the O.A. The matter went upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and vide Order dated 27.04.2000 (Annexure A/1) the CAT order dated 23.08.1993 was quashed and set-aside pursuant to statement given by the learned Additional Solicitor General on the basis of office letter dated 25.04.2000 that the benefit of decision of Jodhpur and Allahabad Benchs of the Tribunal was allowed to the CSBOS. The scale of Rs.260-480/- was revised to the scale of Rs.975-1660/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and to Rs.3200-4900/- w.ef. 01.01.1996. The Department further introduced Time Bound Scale Promotions Scheme on completion of 16 years service in the scale of Rs.5000-8000/- and after 26 years service in the scale of Rs.5500-9000/- respectively. III. Another O.A. No.450/HR/2002 was filed before this Tribunal by the CSBO when the department tried to withdraw the scale of Rs.3200-4900/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and Rs.5000-8000/5500-9000/- given after 16 & 26 years respectively on the ground that the pay scales did not exist in the pay structure of the Defence Department. Vide Order dated 13.09.2002 (Annexure A/2), this Tribunal had allowed the O.A. The order dated 13.09.2002 in that case have already been upheld by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 8759/2002 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 143/2004 filed by the Union of India. Ultimately in compliance, Government of India vide office order dated 27.02.2004, sanctioned the following three pay scales and Time Bound Promotion Scheme of Telephone Operators as prevalent in telecom department to CSBOs under General Staff Branch common roaster of the Defence Department w.e.f. 01.01.1996, which are as under:-
(a) CSBO Grade II Rs. 3200-4900/-
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli SatyanarDN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9b b734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453 dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Vanapalli Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:10:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 4 (OA 060/280/2020)
(b) CSBO Grade I Rs. 5000-8000/-
(c) Tele/SB Supervisors Rs. 5500-9000/-
(d) After completion of 16 years service Rs. 5000-8000/-
(e) After completion of 26 years service Rs. 5500-9000/-
However, vide order dated 27.02.2004 (Annexure A/3), the department withdrew the ACP Scheme dated 09.08.1999 in so far as CSBOS under General Staff Branch common roaster are concerned on the ground that both the Schemes ie. ACP Scheme and Time Bound Promotion Scheme of Telecom Department as granted to CSBOS cannot run concurrently. As such, the CSBOs were granted benefit of Time Bound Promotion Scheme on completion of 16/26 years of service as granted to Telephone Operators of Telecom Department in pursuance of Time Bound Promotion Scheme dated 17.11.1983 and BCR Scheme dated 01.10.1991 issued by the then Department of Telecom. The pay scale of Rs.3200-4900/- was revised to Rs.5200-20,200+G.P. of Rs.2000/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
IV The applicants were duly appointed with the respondents as Telephone Operators Grade-II in grade pay of Rs.1900/- between 2009 to 2012 after completion of all the required formalities in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject (Annexure A/4). On the recommendations of 6th CPC, certain pay scales were merged and accordingly a committee was constituted by the Ministry of Finance for common designation and based upon the recommendations, the Ministry of Finance vide order dated 12.02.2013 (Annexure A/5) took a decision for re- designation of certain posts including the post of Telephone Operator Grade-I and Telephone Operator Grade-ll as Telephone Operator in the pay scale of Rs.5200-2,200/- + G.P. Rs.2000/-. Thereafter, respondent no.1 issued letter dated 27.02.2013 (Annexure A/6), on the subject 'Merger and re-designation of various common category Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli SatyanarDN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9b b734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453 dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Vanapalli Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:10:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 5 (OA 060/280/2020) posts. However, the Telephone Operator Grade-II re-designated as Telephone Operator and they are eligible to get Grade Pay of Rs.2000/- from their date of appointment.
V In pursuance to the orders dated 12.02.2013 and 27.02.2013, the applicants who had been appointed as Telephone Operator Grade-II were re- designated as Telephone operator w.e.f 27.02.13 in the Pay Band/Grade Pay Band 2 of Rs.5200-20200/- Grade Pay Rs.2000/- corresponding to Pre revised Pay Scale Rs. 3200-4900/- vide order dated 16.4.2014 (Annexure A/7). Respondent no.1 issued letter dated 01.05.2019, whereby the Telephone Operator Grade-Il was re-designated as Telephone Operator in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20,200/- + GP. Rs.2000/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006 (Annexure A-12). The aforesaid re-designation was issued with the approval of the DoPT and Ministry of Finance. The applicants have been enjoying the Pay Band/Grade Pay Band 2 of Rs.5200-20200/- + Grade Pay Rs.2000/- corresponding to Pre revised Pay Scale Rs.3200-4900/- in the meanwhile suddenly, the respondents issued an order dated 22.05.2019 (Annexure A/9), on the subject 'Auth of Telephone Operators in AOC'.
Further, an order dated 25.07.2019 (Annexure A/10) was issued on the subject 'Cancellation of part-II order'. The respondents issued an order dated 06.08.2019 (Annexure A/11) on the subject Merger of Telephone Operators'.
VI. The impugned order is in violative of principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was granted to the applicants while withdrawing the aforesaid pay scale. Once, Govt. of India has taken a conscious decision for re-designation of the posts, therefore, the action of the respondents withdrawing the benefits from the applicants is illegal and arbitrary. The respondents also have already granted similar benefit to the CSBO and Telephone Operators working in the same Department, therefore, the action Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli SatyanarDN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9b b734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453 dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Vanapalli Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:10:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 6 (OA 060/280/2020) of the respondents denying the same to the applicants and effecting recovery from the applicants is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
VII It is further submitted by the applicants that similarly situated employees/Telephone Operators like the applicants working in the same department approached to this Tribunal in the matter of Swaran Kaur & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors. in OA No. 675/PB/2005 decided on 31.08.2006 (Annexure A/13), claiming pay scale of Rs.3200-4900/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and the same was allowed by this Tribunal holding that that applicants therein are entitled to benefits as per letter dated 27.02.2004. Similar issue was adjudicated by this Tribunal in the case of Mohd. Ismail & Others vs UOI and others in O.Α. No.393/PB/2010 decided on 26.7.2010. There cannot be two pay scales in the same department for the same post. Such an action of the respondents is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of the India. The applicants were granted the benefit in pursuance to the sanction given by the DoPT and Ministry of Finance, whereas, the impugned orders have been issued by respondent no.2 without the approval of the DoPT and Ministry of Finance, therefore, the same are liable to be set aside.
VIII The stand of the respondents that the benefits granted to other employees by virtue of the Court order shall not be disturbed and the action of the respondents denying the same benefits to the applicants is against the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Satbir Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2002 (2) SCT page 354, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that:-
"when a judgment attains finality, the State is bound to grant relief to its employees who are similarly situated even though they are not party to the litigation. A final decision of the Court must not only be respected but should also be enforced and implemented evenly and without discrimination in respect of all the employees, who are entitled to the benefit, which has been allowed to the employees, who have obtained orders from the Court. The Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli SatyanarDN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9b b734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453 dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Vanapalli Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:10:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 7 (OA 060/280/2020) matter is one of principle and should not depend upon who comes to the court and who does not."
In the case of Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Assn. (Direct Recruit) vs. State of U.P., reported in (2006) 10 SCC 346, the Hon'ble Apex Court has referred to the decision in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. C. Lalitha, reported in (2006) 2 SCC 747 as under :-
"29. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently".
IX The benefits of grade pay of Rs.2000/- was extended to the applicants/Telephone Operators in terms of settled law from the year 2013 and now suddenly it has been decided to withdraw the benefits except the cases where the higher pay scale/grade pay have been granted by the Courts and therefore admittedly the issue has already been settled by the Tribunal further while implementing the direction issued by their lordships the respondents extended the benefits to the applicants also who are the similarly situated persons and now the respondents are discriminating the applicants with the specific and categorical mentioning that the benefits of higher pay scale/grade pay extended by the Courts need not be disturbed whereas there is no case of the respondents that the applicants are different and not the similarly situated persons. The applicants tried to submit the representations raising their grievances though the personal hearing was given but the representation has not been accepted and ignored at the same time the grievances have not been settled rather the respondents are in process to make the recovery from the applicants.
3. The Counsel for the applicants has also submitted the following Judgments in support of his arguments are as follows:-
i) Har Preet & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. in OA No.2950/2019, decided by the CAT Principal Bench, New Delhi on 13.02.2023. Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli
SatyanarDN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9b b734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453 dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Vanapalli Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:10:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 8 (OA 060/280/2020)
ii) Satbir Singh V s. State of Haryana, reported in 2002 (2) SCT.
4. Notice was issued to the respondents. The respondents filed written statement on 25.03.2021 wherein it is submitted as follows:
I. It is submitted by the respondents that the doubts regarding grade structure of Telephone Operators cadre in AOC and pay scale/grade pay applicable to respective grades has been clarified by the Head Quarter i.e. Directorate General of Ordnance Services, New Delhi several times since 2014/2015 onwards and clear instructions have been issued to rectify the mistake regarding grant of erroneous pay scales/grade pay due to misinterpretation of Government of India, MOD letter dated 27.02.2013. The cadre of Telephone Operators in AOC was merged/re-designated in accordance with instructions issued vide Government of India, MOD letter dated 27.02.2013 with their corresponding pay scales as published vide AOC Records Part-II order dated 12.06.2013.
II. In terms of para no.3 of IHQ of MOD (Army) letter dated 27.11.2015 as intimated under IHQ of MOD (Army) letter dated 14.07.2017 and dated 25.09.2018, after implementation of 5th CPC recommendations the cadre structure of Telephone Operators in AOC remained the same with corresponding replacement pay scale as under:-
Sr.No. Name of the Post Pre-revised pay Revised pay scale scale as per 6th CPC a. Telephone Operator Grade-II Rs.3050-4590/- PB-1, Rs.5200- 20200/- with GP of Rs.1900/-
b. Telephone Operator Grade-I Rs.4000-6000/- PB-1 Rs.5200- 20200 with GP of Rs.2400/-
c. Telephone Supervisor Rs.5000-8000/- PB-2 Rs.9300- 34800/- with GP of Rs.4200/-
The issue was examined by the OS Dte and it was found that the revised pay scale and designation, which was already granted to Telephone Operator in Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli SatyanarDN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9b b734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453 dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Vanapalli Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:10:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 9 (OA 060/280/2020) AOC vide AOC Record office Part II Order quoted at Para 1(a) above is not applicable to AOC Telephone Operators. Hence, IHQ of MoD (Army) vide their letter No.A/23714/Misc Cat/OS-8C(ii) dated 22.05.2019 directed this office to rectify the irregularity with immediate effect. It is clear that any scale/grade pay granted to Telephone Operators by Court/ CAT judgment in the past need not be disturbed. Over payment made to the Indls due to wrong fixation/re-designation of Telephone Operator in AOC due to misinterpretation of policy is required to be rectified forthwith. Hence, Part II Order as mentioned at para 1(a) above has been cancelled vide AOC Record office Part II at Order No. 59/Prom/Tele Optr/Misc/CA-6 dt 25.07.2019. The pay fixation and cadre structure of Telephone Operator in AOC remains unchanged.
III It is averred by the respondents in their written statement that IHQ of MOD vide letter dated 22.05.2019 has directed AOC records that due to wrong interpretation of Government of India, Ministry of Defence, letter cited above, revised pay scale alongwith re-designation has been granted to Telephone Operators of AOC. Subsequently, as per directions of IHQ of MoD (Army) vide letter dated 22.05.2019, AOC records issued corrigendum DO Part II order dated 25.07.2019 to cancel the part II order dated 12.06.2013, wherein the revised pay scale and re-designation was granted. Therefore, the pay scale applicable earlier that is of 5th CPC stands applicable to the Telephone Operators.
IV The Telephone Operators of AOC were not eligible for the Pay scale as applicable to Civilian Switch Board Operator (CSBO) of Post & Telegraph and General Staff Branch which are other Ministry/ Department. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 27.04.2000 (Annexure A/1) is applicable to Telephone Operator of AOC. Therefore, claim of the applicants to grant them higher pay scale at par with applicants of other department is wrong, unjustified. OA No.450/HR/2002 in Para 4 further upheld by the Hon'ble Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli SatyanarDN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9b b734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453 dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Vanapalli Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:10:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 10 (OA 060/280/2020) Punjab and Haryana High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court respectively enclosed Annexure A/2 was filed by the CSBO of Directorate of Signal Regt and accordingly the same is restricted to applicants in that case only and the same has not implemented in rem (Across the board) by nodal Ministry i.e. Ministry of DOPT. According to court orders, pay scale and time bound promotion as ordered by Ministry of Defence vide letter dated 27.02.2004 (Annexure A/3) is sanctioned for CSBO working under General Staff Branch.
Hence, claim of applicants to grant them higher pay scale at par with CSBO of General Staff Branch is wrong and unjustified as they were already being granted the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/-.
V The Ministry of Finance vide order dated 12.02.2013 (Annexure A/5) has issued order for re-designation of Telephone Operator Grade-II as Telephone Operator along with pay scale of Rs 5200-20200/- + GP applicable to Rs.2000/- which was replacement pay scale of pre revised pay scale of Rs.3200-4900/- Tele Optr of Other Ministry/Department. Whereas Telephone Operator of AOC were being granted pay scale of Rs.5200- 20200/- + GP Rs.1900/- corresponding to pre revised pay scale of Rs.3050- 4590/-. Hence, their claim for grant them pay scale of Rs.3200-4900/- is wrong, unjustified and hence denied. Based on Ministry of Finance U.0 No 10 (6)/E.III.B/2012 dated 12.02.2013 in sub Para 5 (3) above, Ministry of Defence vide letter dated 27.02.2013 (Annexure A/6) has ordered for merger and re-designation of various common category posts as per 6th CPC recommendations, the re-designation of Telephone Operator Grade-II as Telephone Operator along with pay scale of Rs.5200-20200/- + GP Rs.2000/- granted corresponding to pre-revised pay scale of Rs.3200-4900/- (Replacement pay scale). Whereas pay scale of Rs.5200-20200/- + GP Rs.1900/- corresponding to Rs.3050-4590/- applicable to AOC Telephone Operator. Hence, their claim to grant them higher pay scale at par with CSBO of other Ministry/ Department is wrong and hence denied. Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli SatyanarDN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9b b734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453 dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Vanapalli Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:10:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
11 (OA 060/280/2020) VI Further, due to misinterpretation Government of India, Ministry of Finance order dated 12.02.2013 and Min of Def order dated 27.02.2013 (Annexure A/6), AOC Records has published Daily order Pt-II dated 16.04.2014 (Annexure A/7) by granting the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200/- + GP of Rs.2000/- to the applicants. Accordingly, case of the applicant-I was taken up for fixation of Pay vide order dated 27.03.2015 (Annexure A/8). Ministry of Defence letter dated 01.05.2015 (not 01.05.2019 as mentioned in OA) Annexure A/12 circulated by CGDA vide letter dated 01.06.2015 and pay scale of Telephone Operator Grade-II mentioned therein is Rs.5200- 20200/- + GP Rs.2000/- replacement of pre revised pay scale of Rs.3200- 4900/- applicable to Telephone Operators in other departments. Whereas pay scale of Rs.5200-20200/- + GP Rs.1900/- corresponding to pre-revised pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/- is applicable to Telephone Operator of AOC. Hence, claim of the applicants to grant them higher pay scale is wrong and hence denied. Due to wrong interpretation of policy letters of Ministry of Finance & Ministry of Defence orders dated 02.02.2013 & 27.02.2013 respectively, the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200/- + GP Rs.2000/- was granted to Telephone Operators of AOC. In this regard, IHQ of MoD (Army) vide letter dated 22.05.2019 (Not 25.05.2019) (Annexure A/9) has issued instructions in details to the rectify undertaken by granting of pay grade scales/pay mistakes erroneous due to misinterpretation of Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated 27.2.13 (Annexure A/6). Accordingly, the mistake regarding grant of wrong pay scale rectified and scale granted applicable pay Telephone Operators of AOC. VII Re-designation of post of Telephone Operator mentioned in Govt. of India ibid letters, is applicable to CSBO of other departments. Hence, higher pay scale erroneously granted to applicants has been withdrawn. Further, similar higher pay scale is only granted based on instant court order restricted to applicants therein cannot be only in rem (across the Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli SatyanarDN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9b b734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453 dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Vanapalli Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:10:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 12 (OA 060/280/2020) board). Due to misinterpretation of Ministry of Defence letter dated 27.02.2013 (Annexure A/6), higher pay scale was granted to applicants.
Further, as per detailed directions of IHQ of MoD (Army) dated 22.05.19 (Annexure A/9), the mistake undertaken by granting higher pay scale has been rectified and accordingly applicable pay scale granted to applicants. It is also submitted that pay scale granted to some Tele Operator in the instant Court/CAT orders is restricted to petitioners therein only and as such cannot be implemented in rem (across the board). Therefore, the claim of the applicants to grant them higher pay scale is wrong and denied.
5. The applicant has filed rejoinder wherein the applicant reiterated the contents of the O.A and emphasized on following submissions:
i) The controversy whether the Telephone Operators working in the respondents department are entitled to pay scale as given to the Telephone Operators working in the Postal Department. The said controversy was decided by this Tribunal vide order dated 13.09.2002. Therefore, the action of the respondents withdrawing the said benefits from the applicants is unjustified. The applicants were rightly granted Grade pay of Rs.2000/-
from their initial date of appointment. Once, the other Telephone Operators working in the same department are getting Grade pay of Rs.2000/-, therefore, the action of the respondents denying the same benefits to the applicants is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of the India. The case of the applicants for grant of Grade pay of Rs 2000/- is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court vide Annexure A-13. Thus, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. There cannot be two pay scales for one post, in the present case by denying Grade pay of Rs. 2000/- to the applicants, the applicants have been discriminated. Moreover, the applicants were granted benefits by the respondent no. 1, whereas the pay scale has been withdrawn by the Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli SatyanarDN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9b b734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453 dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Vanapalli Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:10:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 13 (OA 060/280/2020) respondent no. 3, who is an incompetent authority. The applicants were rightly granted benefit of Grade pay of Rs.2000/- and there is no illegality in the same.
ii) It is pleaded by the applicants that the applicants were rightly granted Grade pay of Rs.2000/- from due date, therefore, the action of the respondents withdrawing the same from the applicants is illegal and arbitrary and unjustified. The case of the applicants for re-storation of Grade pay of Rs. 2000/- is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Mohd. Ismail and others vs UOI & Ors, O.A. No. 393/PB/2010, decided on 26.10.2011, wherein the Hon'ble Court was pleased to allow in terms of decision rendered in the case of Swaran Kaur (Supra) (Annexure A/14). The applicants therein pertains to the same department, therefore, the applicants being similarly placed employees cannot be denied the same benefits. Rather, it was incumbent upon the respondents to take universal decision to extent the benefit of decision rendered in the case of Sawaran Kaur and Mod. Ismail & Ors. (supra). The respondents are granting the benefits to the employees who approached to the Court, on the other hand, the respondents are denying the benefits to the applicants as they did not approach to the Court. Such an action of the respondents is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of the India. Such an action of the respondents amounts to nullifying the judicial pronouncements passed by this Hon'ble Court and upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court and already stands implemented. The case of the applicants for grant of Grade pay of Rs.2000/- from initial date of appointment is covered by the decision rendered by this Court (Annexure A-2) and upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court and already implemented by the respondents and further covered by the decision rendered by this Hon'ble Court vide Annexure A/13 & Annexure A/14. Once, a judicial pronouncement has already attained finality, therefore, the action of the respondents denying the benefits of the same to Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli SatyanarDN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9b b734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453 dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Vanapalli Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:10:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 14 (OA 060/280/2020) similarly placed employees is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, the applicants prayed that the instant OA be allowed.
6. Heard both the counsels and have read the averments and pleadings made in the present OA.
7. The applicants have challenged Annexure A/9, A/10 and A/11. The perusal of the concerned annexures are as follows:-
Annexure A/9 deals with the AUTH of Telephone Operators in AOC vide order dated 22.05.2019, Annexure A/10 deals with cancellation of Part II Order:
merger and Re-designation of Telephone Operators vide order dated 25.07.2019 whereby Part II of order dated 12.06.2013 is hereby cancelled.
Annexure A/11 vide order dated 06.08.2019, it has further been clarified regarding Part II of the order:-
".....5. However, it is clear that any higher pay scale/grade pay granted to Telephone Operators by Hon'ble Court/CAT judgment in the past need not be disturbed. Over payment made to the indls due to wrong fixation/re-designation of Tele Optr in AOC due to misinterpretation of policy is required to be rectified forthwith. Hence, Part II Order as mentioned at para 1 (a) above has been cancelled vide this office Part II Order No.59/Prom/Tele Optr/Misc/CA-6 dt 25 Jul 2019 (copy att). The pay fixation and cadre structure of Telephone Operator in AOC remains unchanged as per para 3 above.
6. In view of the above, units are requested to fwd Due Drawn statement along with the statement of case mentioning recovery details to this office by 31 Aug 2019 for onward submission to IHQ of MoD (Army) OS-BC."
8. The applicants seek parity with CSBOs in terms of Grade Pay of Rs.2000/- instead of Rs.1900/- as indicated in the letter dated 06.08.2019 (Annexure A/11). The perusal of the relevant para as stated above clearly indicates that over payment made to the individuals due to wrong fixation/re-designation of Telephone Operators in AOC is required to be rectified forthwith.
9. Further, as per the settled law in the matter of State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Others, reported in (2015) 4 Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli SatyanarDN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9b b734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453 dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Vanapalli Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:10:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 15 (OA 060/280/2020) SCC 334, since there was no misrepresentation on behalf of the applicants while being granted the said pay scale. Thus, the recovery of over payment made during the period till 06.08.2019 is not permissible. Further, since the cadre structure of Telephone Operators in AOC remain the same after the implementation of 6th CPC recommendations, thus, this cadre structure cannot be changed. The only question in this case remains whether the Grade Pay of Rs.2000/- for Telephone Operators Grade II is to be restored or it has to be implemented forthwith w.e.f. 06.08.2019.
10. Counsel for the applicants has placed on record the order passed by the CAT PB New Delhi in the matter of Har Preet & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. in OA No.2950/2019, decided on 13.02.2023 vide which to the concerned applicants the OA was allowed and the impugned communication dated 06.08.2019 was set aside. The operative portion of the order which reads as under:-
".......9. In the light of what has been detailed above, the OA is allowed and the impugned communication dated 06.08.2019 is set aside. The pay and allowances the applicants were enjoying prior to the impugned order stands restored.
There shall be no orders as to costs."
11. The counsel for the respondents was specifically asked to indicate to the Court, if any, whether the said order has been granted or any appeal has been preferred against this order by the respondents. Nothing was heard from the respondents in this regard. The order passed by CAT PB New Delhi persuasive value for this Tribunal also. Therefore, in this case also qua the applicants the same pay structure is hereby ordered to be restored without affecting the cadre structure of Telephone Operators in AOC. The impugned orders dated 22.05.2019 (Annexure A/9) and dated 06.08.2019 (Annexure A/11) are quashed to the extent of pay fixation of the applicants. Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli SatyanarDN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9b b734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453 dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Vanapalli Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:10:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 16 (OA 060/280/2020)
12. In view of the above, the OA is allowed with the above observations and any recovery of re-fixation done that needs to be restored. No order as to costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sv/
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana
Vanapalli
SatyanarDN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9b b734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453 dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Vanapalli Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:10:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0