Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Mukesh Kumar Kaurav vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 5 December, 2025
1 OA No.60/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.60/2017
Dated this Friday the 05th December, 2025
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A)
Hon'ble Shri Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
1. Shri Mukesh Kumar Kaurav
S/o Rajesh Kumar Kaurav
Age - 33 Years, Occupation - Service,
R/o D-2 Staff Quarters, CTO Compound,
BSNL Bahadurpura, Aurangabad
(Maharashtra)
2. Shri Zamirul Hasan
S/o Zubairul Hasan,
Age - 30 Years, Occupation - Service,
R/o C-3, BSNL Staff Quarters, Telephone
Bhawan, Ajab Nagar, Aurangabad
Maharashtra.
3. Shri Kasa Kota Satya Sekhar
S/o Subba Rao,
Age - 37 Years, Occupation - Service,
C-3, Type III, Staff Quarters,
CTO Compound, BSNL,
Bahadurpura, Aurangabad (Maharashtra)... Applicants
( By Advocate Shri G.B. Kamdi )
VERSUS
Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b,
Milan Jackson Phone=
30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc,
PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=
6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f
4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso
Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.12.09 10:22:40+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0
1. The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Through the Chairman & Managing Director,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Sanchar Bhawan Janpath,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2 OA No.60/2017
2. The Secretary
Ministry of Communication &
Information Technology
Department of Telecommunication
Sanchar Bhawan,
20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 110 001.
3. The Chief General Manager
BSNL Maharashtra Circle,
Admn Building Juhu Road,
Santacruz (W), Mumbai - 400 054.
4. The Secretary, the Department of
Public enterprises, 305, block 14,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110 001. ... Respondents
(By Advocate Dr. V.S. Masurkar)
ORDER
Per: Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A)
The applicants 3 in number have filed this OA to set aside the impugned order dated 30th December, 2014 by which the claim of the applicants has been rejected and they are seeking direction to the Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= respondents to remove disparity between the JTO of 2005 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f 4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.09 10:22:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 batch and 2007-2008 batch and grant them basic initial pay of Rs.22820/- as provided to the JTO batch of 2005 who joined after 01st January, 2007.3 OA No.60/2017
2. This is the second round of litigation. In the first round of litigation, 7 applicants had filed OA Nos.590, 591, 613, 614, 616, 617, 618 & 620 of 2014 before this Tribunal which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 14th October, 2014 by which the respondents were directed to dispose of the applicants' representation dated 17th June, 2005 in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 8 weeks. However, it was made clear that the Tribunal had not gone into the merits of the OA. The applicants in that OA had filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad by way of Writ Petition No.6936/2015 which was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay vide order and judgment dated 01st September, 2016. The Hon'ble High Court has noted that the learned ASG has raised the preliminary objection Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f 4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso and submitted that the respondents have passed speaking Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.09 10:22:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 order pursuant to the Tribunal's order and if the Petitioners are not satisfied, they can approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court disposed of the petition with 4 OA No.60/2017 liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal by keeping all contentions open. 2.1 Out of 7 applicants in the original OA, only 3 applicants have approached this Tribunal by filing this OA. It is the case of the applicants that since their senior JTOs of batch 2005 who have joined after 01st January, 2007 are getting basic pay of Rs.22,820/, they should also be given the same pay scale even though they belong to 2007-2008 batch. 2.2 It has been submitted that by the impugned order, the claim of the applicant has been rejected on the ground that the applicants have been compensated by giving 5 advance increments to match the pay fixation of the JTOs of 2005 batch. It has been submitted that the applicants were recruited under JTO Recruitment Rules of 2001 which notified with pay scale of Rs.9850-14600/- which was later on revised to Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f 4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Rs.21620/- and the applicants were fixed in that scale.
Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.09 10:22:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 However, their seniors of 2005 batch were fixed in the pay scale of Rs.22820/-. It has been submitted that the JTO of 2007-2008 batch were fixed at Rs.19020/- at the initial appointment which is in violation of 5 OA No.60/2017 Article 14 and 16 of the constitution. The applicants have placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Ibrahim and Anr. Vs. Union of India and others, 1994(2) CALLT 410 HC wherein the Hon'ble High Court has directed to revise the pay fixation of the petitioners therein on the ground of disparity.
3. After issuance of notice, the respondents have filed their reply and contested the OA. It has been submitted that under 2nd PRC, Department of Public Enterprises (DPE) vide its OM dated 26.11.2008 notified the revised IDA pay scales from E-0 to E-9 w.e.f. 01.01.2007 in respect of below Board level executives of CPSEs except the revised pay scale correspondening to E-1A to E-2A pay scales operative in BSNL. In addition, the pay of the existing executives who were on the rolls of BSNL as on 31.12.2016 was allowed to Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f 4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso be fixed as per the fitment benefit @30% on basic pay Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.09 10:22:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 plus DA @ 68.8% (subsequently increased to 78.2%) as on 01.01.2007. Since, the E1A and E2A pay scales were specially approved by DPE/DOT for BSNL only at the time of absorption; BSNL sent a proposal to DOT on 6 OA No.60/2017 09.01.2009 for the approval of the following revised IDA pay scale corresponding to the pre revised scale:
Rs.9850-250-14600 (E1A) - Rs.188820-40500 (higher than E1) Rs.11875-300-17275 (E-2A) - Rs.22800-46500 DOT while issuing the presidential order dated 28.03.2017 for revision of pay for BSNL executives, stated that the proposal of E1A and E2A scales shall be dealt separately. Accordingly, due to pending approval of the revised E1A scale, the pay of the JTOs including the present applicants has been provisionally fixed in revised E1 scale of Rs.16400-
40500. The applicants were facing loss of pay in the revised E1 scale when compared to the pay in pre- revised E1A scale. Therefore, BSNL Board provisionally allowed grant of five advance increments in the minimum of the E1 scale on the date of appointment to the JTOs appointment against 2007 & 2008 batches including the Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f 4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso applicants.
Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.09 10:22:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 3.1 It has been submitted that subsequently, DOT ,in consultation with DPE, rejected the proposal for revision of E1A and E2A scales. Therefore, the BSNL Management re-examined the issue and decided to propose 7 OA No.60/2017 grant of revised E2/E3 scales in replacement of pre-
revised E1A and E2A scales w.e.f. 01.01.2007 and sent the proposal to the DOT for approval. However, on 28.03.2007, DOT has issued a Presidential order for grant of E1(Rs.16500-40500/-) & E2(Rs.20600/- 46500/) scales in replacement of pre-revised E1A & E2A scales thereby lowering the existing scales for these executives. In addition, those Executives who were absorbed/directly recruited/promoted in the pre- revised E1A & E2A scales have been allowed revised scale of Rs.18850-40500 & Rs.22800-46500 on personal basis.
3.2 It has been further submitted that in case the Presidential order dated 28.3.2017 is implemented, as per their undertaking (furnished at the time of grant of five advance increments on minimum of El scale), the pay of the applicants is to be regulated Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f 4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso in the scale of Rs. 18850-40500/- which will reduce Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.09 10:22:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 their pay from Rs. 19020/- to Rs. 18850/- on the date of their appointment. However, as the Presidential order dated 28.3.2017 is not as per the BSNL's proposal, BSNL has requested the DOT to reconsider its 8 OA No.60/2017 decisions and approve the proposal for grant of E2 & E3 scales. Besides, the comparison made by the applicants with the pay of the JTOs of 2005 batch is not justified. As JTO's of 2005 batch are senior to JTO's of 2007 batch and, therefore, no comparison can be made between two unequal batches.
3.3 It has been further submitted that similar issue has been decided by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal and has already been turned down by the Hon'ble CAT Principal Bench vide judgement in OA No. 3208/2011 filed by some JTO's of 2007 and 2008 batch and appointed after 01.01.2007 praying for grant of equal pay with that of senior batch appointed against recruitment year 2005. In its judgement dated 23.4.2013, the Hon'ble Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi observed that:
"As far as the applicants are concerned, admittedly they are of subsequent batches. The appointees of 2005 batch are senior to Milan Jackson Alphanso Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f 4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document them. In our considered opinion, they cannot claim any stepping up of pay on the grounds that their seniors were being paid higher. We Location:
Date: 2025.12.09 10:22:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 also do not feel that there is any discrimination against them as they cannot compare themselves with their seniors. We do not feel that the principle of equal pay for equal work is attracted in this case."
In view of above, the comparison of pay made by the applicants with the pay of the JTOs of earlier batches 9 OA No.60/2017 who stand senior to him is not correct.
3.4 It has been submitted that with regard to the comparison made with the JAOs, it may be seen that their case is not comparable as they were departmental candidates who were promoted as JAO against the departmental quota vacancies and have been allowed relaxation in the provision for exercising option for fixation of pay in the revised pay scale from the date of promotion. They were otherwise admissible to fitment benefit under 2nd PRC w.e.f. 01.01.2007 in their lower grade before promotion as JAO. On the other hand, the applicants are purely outside candidates who appeared in the open competition for direct recruitment to the post of JTO. The fitment benefit under 2nd PRC is not admissible to them. Hence the contents of these paras are not acceptable to the Respondents. 3.5 It has been submitted that the applicants Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f 4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso have mentioned only about the Annexure I of the said Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.09 10:22:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 order. However, in the said order it was also mentioned as "in respect of Executives in E1A and E2A scales, their pay may be fixed in the revised E-1 & E-2 IDA scales of Rs.16,400-40500 and Rs.20600-46500 10 OA No.60/2017 respectively and these revised scales may also be used wherever specifying the pay scales in unavoidable (e.g. for pension contribution, fresh appointment etc.) till the time new scales are notified." Therefore, the Annexure-I referred by the applicants is in accordance with this only.
3.6 It has been submitted that the agitated employees were requested for withdrawal of their notice for demonstration as a part of the grievance redressal mechanism. Hence, no right can be claimed by the applicants justifying their demands in OA. The issue mentioned in the para policy decision taken by BSNL Corporate Office has been mentioned by the applicants. 3.7 It has been submitted that the Annexure '5' was issued by BSNL Corporate Office vide which approval was given for the proposal for pay of all the JTOs of 2005 batch who joined after 1.1.2007 to remove the Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f 4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso disparity in pay of DR JTOS of the same batch. A'6' is Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.09 10:22:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 issued by BSNL Corporate Office regarding revision of pay of Board level and below Board level Executives w.e.f. 1.1.2007 reduction of emoluments of directly recruited JTOs of 2007 and 2008 Batch & directly 11 OA No.60/2017 recruited JAOs in respect of whom result was declared in April, 2010. In view of the above, there is no violation and illegal action by the Respondents as stated by the applicants.
3.8 It has been submitted that the BSNL Corporate Office order issued vide 10.6.2013 Α'9' is regarding Presidential Directive issued by Ministry of communication for the fitment w.e.f. 10.6.2013 for Board level executives. As per this order no arrears will be paid and revised fitment on the basis of DPE dt. 2.4.09 will be paid from the date of Presidential Directive 1.0. 10.6.2013. Hence statement that discrimination among the employees appointed after 1.1.07 was made is not correct. The BSNL letter dt. 8.7.13 (Α'10') is regarding revised table of fixation of pay as on 1.1.07 in respect of executives in BSNL.
The pay of the applicants joined BSNL after 1.1.07 in Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f 4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso the revised scale of Rs. 9850-250-14600 is regulated Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.09 10:22:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 as replied for para 4.4 to 4.7. The comparison made by the applicants with the JTOs of 2005 batch for fitment benefit under 2nd PRC is not correct as this matter has already been rejected by the CAT Principal Bench 12 OA No.60/2017 in its judgement dated 23.4.2013 in OA No.3208/2011. 3.9 It has been further submitted that the impugned order has been passed pursuant to direction dated 14.10.2014 of this Tribunal. Therefore, the OA is not maintainable and requires to be dismissed.
4. The applicants have filed rejoinder reiterating and elaborating the submissions made in the OA. Thay have placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Savitha & Others Vs. Union of India & Others, 1985 SCC (L&S) 826.
5. The respondents in turn have filed sur-
rejoinder reiterating the elaborating their submissions in the reply.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the respondents.
7. It is the case of the applicants that they are the JTOs of 2007-2008 batch and, therefore, they should Milan Jackson Alphanso Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f 4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.09 10:22:40+05'30' have pay parity with the JTOs of 2005 batch. Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0
8. Learned counsel for the applicants Mr. Kamdi submitted that there cannot be different pay for equal work. He places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Culcutta High Court in the case of Ibrahim Mollah and 13 OA No.60/2017 Another Vs. Union of India and Others(supra). He further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Savitha and Others Vs. Union of India (supra) has held that there has to be equal pay for equal work. Since the JTOs of 2007-08 batches are also doing the similar work as that of JTOs of 2005 batch, their pay should also be fixed equal to JTOs of 2005 batch.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the difference in initial pay of JTOS of 2005 batch and 2007-08 batch JTOs arose due to pay loss occurred to them consequential to the pay fixation as per recommendations of 20 PRC. The loss in pay was suitably compensated by the respondent (BSNL) by fixing their pay as instructed in office orders No. 1-29/2010-PAT (BSNL) dated 03-01-2012 and 1-29/2010-PAT (BSNL) dated Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f 4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso 19.03.2012. Allegation of creating discrimination and Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.09 10:22:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 violation of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India is not correct. 9.1 He has submitted that similar issue has been considered by the Principal Bench of CAT in OA 14 OA No.60/2017 No.3208/2011 wherein similar claim was made by the JTOs of 2007-2008 batch. The Principal Bench vide order dated 23.04.2013 has rejected the claim of JTOs 2007- 08 batch. The applicants are also the JTOs of 2007-
2008 batch. Since the Principal Bench of this Tribunal has already decided this issue against the applicants, this Tribunal is bound by the doctrine of judicial precedence and bound to follow the judgment of Principal Bench as the same has attained finality as the same has not been challenged by the applicants therein.
9.2 Dr. Masurkar further submitted that the speaking order No.4-09/2014-FAT(BSNL) dated 30.12.2014 issued by BSNL Establishment Cell challenged by the applicants was issued in compliance of CAT, Mumbai Bench order dated 14.10.2014. The basis of fixation of initial pay of the applicants and similarly placed Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f 4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso executives is clearly set out at para 3.0 of the Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.09 10:22:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 speaking order dated 30.12.2014.
10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made be learned counsel for the parties.
15 OA No.60/2017
11. The undisputed facts are that the applicants are JTOs of 2007-2008 batch and they are claiming pay parity with their seniors of 2005 batch. We find that similar issue came up for consideration before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.3208/2011 and the said Bench while dismissing the same, filed by DR JTO of 2007 & 2008 batches wherein it was alleged that these employees have been discriminated against as they have not been allowed 30% fitment benefit under 2 PRC as compared to other existing employees of BSNL especially JTOs of 2005 batch who have also joined after 01.01.2007, vide judgement of Hon'ble CAT Principal Bench order dated 23.04.2013 observed that:-
"...as far as the applicants are concerned, admittedly they are of subsequent batches. The appointees of 2005 batch are senior to them. In our considered opinion, they cannot claim any stepping up of pay on the grounds that their seniors were being paid higher. We also Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f 4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso do not feel that there is any discrimination against them as they cannot compare themselves Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.09 10:22:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 with their seniors. Merely, because some of the seniors joined after 01.01.2007 or even along with 2001 and 2008 batches does not make any difference to their seniority as 2005 batch appointees will always remain senior to appointees of subsequent batches. We do not feel that the principle of equal pay for equal 16 OA No.60/2017 work is attracted in this case nor are the Apex Court ruling cited by the applicants will be relevant. The applicants would certainly have had grievance if any junior to them had been paid a higher pay but this is not the case."
12. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the Principal Bench has not considered the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Savitha & Others (supra). In that case, the issue was whether the Draughtsmen in the Ministry of Defence can be denied the pay of Senior Draughtmen even after their promotion. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it would be a great injustice to continue the appellants on the scales of pay of Draughtsmen even after promotion as Senior Draughtsmen, which is destructive of all incentive and initiative in the service. We find that in the case before hand, there is no such denial to the applicants. Therefore, the Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f facts of the case of P. Savitha (supra) are 4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.09 10:22:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 distinguishable.
13. Similarly in the case of Ibrahim Mollah (supra), the issue before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court was whether executives promoted from non- 17 OA No.60/2017 executive category to the executive category in between 01.01.1987 and 26.07.1989 (both dates inclusive) can be given different pay. In the facts of that case, the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta has held that the method of pay fixation provided for the executives promoted from the non-executive category to the executive category causing financial loss varying from Rs.100/- to 620/- per month under the Office Memorandum dated 30.05.1991 compared to which is admissible to another group of executives promoted on or before 31.12.1986 was not permissible.
14. We find that in the case before us it is not a case of the promotion from non-executive to executive category and the different pay fixation is not because of promotion from one category to another category but only because of applicants having joined much later than their seniors. Moreover, they have already been Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f 4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso compensated by giving them 5 increments on minimum pay Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.09 10:22:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 of Rs.16,400/- and initial basic pay was fixed at Rs.19,020/-. We further find that the JTOs of 2007- 2008 batch have given an undertaking to allow them basic pay of Rs.19020/- and, therefore, they are bound 18 OA No.60/2017 by the same.
15. In view of the above facts, we do not find any merit in the claim of the applicants to grant them equal pay to their seniors of 2005 batches as they are getting higher pay because of their seniority.
16. In view of the above facts and the issue having been decided by the Principal Bench against the JTO of 2007-2008 batches, the Original Application is bereft of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No costs.
(Umesh Gajankush) (Shri Krishna)
Member (J) Member (A)
ma.
Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Milan Jackson Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f 4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.09 10:22:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0