Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Nareshkumar G Parmar vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 5 March, 2026
::1 :: O.A.No.348/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH
O.A. No.348/2017
This, the 05th day of March, 2026.
CORAM : Hon'ble Shri Jayesh.V Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
1. Shri Nareshkumar, Son of Shri Govabhai Parmar, Age about
67 years, Retd. Sr.TOA(G) of the respondents, Residing at B/47,
Payal Park, Krishnanagar Road, Saijpur, Ahmedabad 382 345.
2. Shri Dineshchandra, Son of Shri Dahyabhai Mistry, Age
about 73 years, Retd. Sr.TOA(TG) of the respondents, Residing
at C-11, Suvarnadham Avenue, Opp. Sundarvan Flat, Ranip,
Ahmedabad 382 480.
Ahmedab 3. Shri Manilal, Son of Shri Kalidas Rathod, Age about 70
ad Bench years, Redt.TOA (TG) of the respondents, Residing at C-4,
Anjana Co.op Hsg. Society, Bhagyodaya Apartment, Umnagar,
Asarva, Ahmedabad - 380 016.
4. Shri Motilal, Son of Shri Ramjibhai Desai, Age about 70
years, Redt.Sr.TOA (TG) of the respondents, Residing at 26/833
Geetanagar, Jantanagar, Amraiwadi, Ahmedabad 380 026.
5. Shri Parshottam, Son of Shri Ramjibhai Solanki, Age about
70 years, retired Head Telegraphman (outdoor) of the
respondents, Residing at 514, Vashram Bhavan, Vankarvas,
Opp.Patel Wadi, Paldi, Ahmedabad.
6. Shri Popatlal, Son of Shri Maganlal Shah, Age about 70
years, Redt.Sr.TOA (TG) of the respondents, Residing at M/405,
Devraj Residency, Opp. Shriji Bungalow, Vasant Vihar Road,
Nava Naroda, Ahmedabad.
7. Shri Ganpatbhai, Son of Shri Dulabhai Rathod, Age about
70 years, Redt.Head Telegraphman of the respondents, Residing
at C-14/1, Hudco Flat, Sorab Compound, Juna Vadaj,
Ahmedabad.
8. Shri Kantilal, Son of Shri Lakhabhai Rathod, Age about
70 years, Redt.Head Telegraphman of the respondents, Residing
at 49/207, Anandnagar, 100 feet Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad 380
015.
9. Shri Mehboobbhai Son of Shri Kasamali Saiyed, Age
about 69 years, Redt.Head Telegraphman of the respondents,
Residing at Swashray Society, Opp. Zarfdairy, Sarkhej Road,
Juhapura, Ahmedabad.
10. Shri Laxmanbhai, Son of Shri Jethabhai Vaghela, Age
about 69 years, Redt.Sr.TOA (TG) of the respondents, Residing
KHAMBHATI
2026.03.23
NILESH
11:47:49+05'30'
KANTILAL
::2 :: O.A.No.348/2017
at 17, Sharad Co.Op Housing Society, Radhaswamy Road,
Ranip, Ahmedabad.
11. Shri Mulchandbhai, Son of Shri Somachandbhai Parmar,
Age about 69 years, Redt.Sr.TOA (TG) of the respondents,
Residing at 2, Udayprabha Society, Opp. Dena Bank, Danilimda,
Ahmedabad 380 028.
12. Shri Parshottam, Son of Shri Kalidas Priyadarshi, Age about
69 years, Redt.Sr.TOA (TG) of the respondents, Residing at
Village : Zak, Taluka - Dehgam, Dist.-Gandhinagar
13. Shri Hiralal, Son of Shri Somchand Parmar, Age about 68
years, Redt.Sr.TOA (TG) of the respondents, Residing at A/36/D,
Dharnidhar Bungalows, Parswanath Township Road, B/h. SRP
Quarters, New Naroda, Ahmedabad.
14. Shri Raimalbhai, Son of Shri Somabhai Patni, Age about 69
years, Redt.Sr.TOA (TG) of the respondents, Residing at
1209/B/28, Kailash Chawl, Opp. Asarva Talva, Ahmedabad 380
Ahmedab 016.
ad Bench 15. Shri Ramanlal, Son of Shri Laljibhai Parmar, Age about 68
years, Redt.Sr.TOA (TG) of the respondents, Residing at B-28,
Swastik Bungalows, Raipur Mill Compound, Saraspur,
Ahmedabad 380 018.
16. Shri Raimalbhai, Son of Shri Bababhai Patni, Age about 67
years, Redt.Sr.TOA (TG) of the respondents, Residing at
Tadwali Chal, Civil Hospital Road, Chamanpura, Ahmedabad.
17. Shri Amrutbhai, Son of Shri Popatlal Patni, Age about 68
years, Redt.Head Telegraphman of the respondents, Residing at
5/136, Patel Chal outside, Saraspur Anil Starch Road, Near City
Gold, Ahmedabad.
18. Shri Manubhai, Son of Shri Chhaganlal Parmar, Age
about 69 years, Redt.Sr.TOA (TG) of the respondents, Residing
at C-6, Navdurga Society, Nr. Godiji Park Society, Dehgam
Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad 382 330.
19. Shri Atmaram, Son of Shri Kalidas Dodia, Age about 66
years, Redt.Sr.TOA (TG) of the respondents, Residing at 45,
Sejalnagar Society, G.D.High School Road, Saijpur Bogha,
Ahmedabad 382 345. ................................. Applicants
(By Advocate : Shri M.S.Trivedi )
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through
The Secretary
Ministry of Communication & I.T.,
Department of Telecommunication
20, Ashoka Road, Sanchar Bhavan,
KHAMBHATI
2026.03.23
NILESH
11:47:49+05'30'
KANTILAL
::3 :: O.A.No.348/2017
New Delhi 110 001.
2. The Chairman/ Managing Director
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
Corporate Office,
Statesman House, Bavakhamba Road,
New Delhi 110 001.
3. The Chief General Manager
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
O/o. CGM, Gujarat Telecom Circle
Telephone Bhavan, C.G.Road,
Ahmedabad 380 006.
4. The Principal General Manager
O/o. Pr. G.M. Ahmedabad Telecom District
Gulbai Tekra, Telephone Exchange Building
Ahmedabad 380 006. .................... Respondents
(By Advocate : Ms. R.R.Patel R-1, Mr. Joy Mathew R- 2 to 4 )
Ahmedab
ad Bench
O R D E R (ORAL)
Per : Hon'ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
The applicants have filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"(A) That the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to allow this petition.
(B) That the Hon'ble Tribunal further be pleased to hold/ declare that the impugned action on the part of the respondents not considering the request of the applicants and being aggrieved by the discriminatory treatment meted out to them by the respondents in the matter of not counting / granting one extra increment in BRC Grade-III one year prior to retirement, is ex-facie, illegal, arbitrary, unjust and nonest in the eyes of law.
(C ) That the Hon'ble Tribunal further be pleased to direct the respondents to give/ extend the benefit of one increment which were subsequently, illegally withdrawn by the respondents. The applicants are required to refund the said increment with all consequential benefits including giving the effect of the same in their pensionary benefits with arrears and 12% interest thereon.
(D) Such other and further relief/s as may be deemed just and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted.
KHAMBHATI 2026.03.23 NILESH 11:47:49+05'30' KANTILAL ::4 :: O.A.No.348/2017
2. In the instant OA, it is the grievance of the applicants that the claim for grant of one extra increment in BRC Grade-III we.f. one year prior to retirement in light of the order passed by the CAT Ernakulam Bench in OA No. 91/2011 dated 15.03.2012 has not been considered by the respondents in spite of the repeated request and representation submitted in this regard before the competent authority. Hence, this OA.
3. Mr. M.S.Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicants in support of the aforesaid claim submits that by considering the respondents stand including DoT's letter dated 04.11.2011 whereby the DoT did not agree to the proposal for grant of one extra increment to BRC Ahmedab Grade-III officials of BSNL who had reached maximum of the scale ad Bench or were drawing stagnation increment one year prior to their retirement, if they are unable to be promoted to BCR Grade-IV and reckoning the said extra increment towards calculation of pension and other pensionary benefits, the CAT Ernakulam Bench vide order dated 15.03.2012 passed in the OA No. 91/2011 held as under :
"6. Annexure R-1(1) is the true extract of the Rule 9(21) (a) of FR. Annexure R-1(2) is the true extract of Rule 33 of CCS (Pension) Rules under Chapter IV Emoluments and Average Emoluments. Annexure R-1(3) is the true extract of FR 19. Annexure R-1(4) is the true extract of a letter issued by the 411 respondent taking the stand that pension is sanctioned on the basis of emoluments as defined in Rule 9(21)(a)(i) which means the amount drawn monthly by the Government servant as the pay other than special pay granted in view of his personal qualification which has been sanctioned for a post held by him substantive or in an officiating capacity, or to which he is entitled by reason of his position in a cadre. As the extra increment other than stagnation increment granted to a person who is drawing pay at the maximum of the scale of pay will not come under pay as defined in FR 9 (21)(a)(i) and as such, the same cannot be reckoned as emoluments for calculation of pensionary benefits. In other words, according to him, as per FR 19 the pay of a Government servant shall not be so increased as to exceed the pay sanctioned for the post. As such, there is no provision in the FR to sanction increment other than stagnation increment beyond the maximum of the scale of pay. This stand taken by the 4th respondent appears to be misconceived on the true language of FR 19 to which I shall advert to later. Annexure R-1(5) is the true extract of letter addressed to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director under date KHAMBHATI 2026.03.23 NILESH 11:47:49+05'30' KANTILAL ::5 :: O.A.No.348/2017 04.11.2011 as per which proposal regarding grant of one extra increment to BCR Grade Ill officials of BSNL who had reached maximum of the scale or were drawing stagnation increment one year prior to their retirement if they were unable to be promoted to 8CR Grade IV and reckoning the said extra increment towards calculation of pension and other pensionary benefits have been examined in the Department of Telecommunications and has not been agreed to. This is a letter issued during the pendency of the OA. The OA was admitted on 03.02.2011 and this letter is issued on 04.11.2011. By virtue of Section 19 (4) of the AT Act, where an application has been admitted by a Tribunal under sub-section (3), every proceeding under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances in relation to the subject matter of such application pending immediately before such admission shall abate and save as otherwise directed by the Tribunal, no appeal or representation in relation to such matter thereafter be entertained under such rules. It is contended by the applicants that Annexure R-1 (5) is thus abated by virtue of provisions under Section 19 (4) of AT Act. Further this has been issued without hearing the parties who were beneficiaries Ahmedab of an order Annexures A-1 and A-2 as part of wage settlement after hearing the affected parties.
ad Bench
7. The 3rd respondent has filed reply statement for and on behalf of R 2 & 3 have virtually supported the case of the applicant and in the circumstances Annexures A-I and A-2 were issued. According to them, representations were forwarded after counting extra increment granted to them and they do not have any separate stand but support the applicants. Annexure A-2 is the order approved by the Government of India and the decision was conveyed as per Annexure A-I.
8. I have heard at length the respective counsel appearing for the applicants as well as the respondents. Annexure A-I proceedings issued on 18.11.2003 is specific on the subject on payment of one extra increment in BCR Grade Ill may be given one year prior to retirement. The same is issued by the BSNL and proceedings is the outcome of the 2nd meeting of National Council held on 28.05.2003, on the demand relating to time bound promotions to Grade IV. In this connection, it may be mentioned that BSNL came into existence in 2000 and all the employees of the erstwhile P & T Department except those who opted out, became employees of BSNL. It was decided by the Board of BSNL to grant one extra increment in BCR Grade Ill may be given one year prior to retirement. Without benefit of FR 22 (c), to those Group 'C' officials who are in BCR Grade III and are unable to get Grade IV promotion on the terms and conditions mentioned there under to which reference has already been made while stating the facts. It is specifically provided under condition No.(vi) that the scheme of extra increment will be effective from 01.06.2003 and the officials retiring after 01.06.2003 will get the financial benefit from that date only. This extra increment will be counted for the pensionary and other retirement benefit purposes. It must be borne in mind that Annexure A-I was issued in the light of agreement in the 2 meeting of National Council held on 28.05.2003 KHAMBHATI 2026.03.23 NILESH 11:47:49+05'30' KANTILAL ::6 :: O.A.No.348/2017 which conveys the decision of the BSNL in Annexure A-2, Government of India considered the decision so taken and specifically accorded approval stating that the Under Secretary has been directed to state that the competent authority has approved the counting of one extra increment granted to Grade III staff of BSNL covered under OTBP / BCR Scheme one year prior to their retirement towards pension and pensionary benefits as a special case as this issue had been a part of wage settlement in the case of these Grade Ill employees who have been absorbed in BSNL in accordance the option exercised by them. Thus going by Annexures A-1 and A-2, certain benefits granted as part of wage settlement could not have been withdrawn unilaterally. In this case, decision not to accord with such payment as required in Annexure R-1(5) is not a decision rendered based on any such settlement nor is it issued under any provisions of law. Further the affected parties were not heard in the matter. Besides Annexure R-1 (5) was issued during the pendency of the OA and as per Section 19 (4) of A.T.Act, it has been abated. For the above reason, it is a decision not to count the extra increment to BCR officials who had reached the maximum of the Ahmedab scale or were drawing stagnation increment one year prior to retirement as part of pensionary benefits is totally arbitrary and ad Bench illegal and contrary to the wage settlement accorded as reflected in Annexure A-1 and approved by Annexure A-2 and also violation of principles of natural justice.
9. For the purpose of completion, I may advert to other contentions raised by the respondents in the reply statement. FR 19 reads as under :
"Except in the case of personal pay granted in the circumstances defined in Rule 9 (23) (a), the pay of a Government servant shall not be so increased as to exceed the pay sanctioned for his post without the sanction of an authority competent to create a post in the same cadre on a rate of pay equal to his pay when increased."
(emphasis given)
10. Obviously, the stand taken by the respondents for grant of one extra increment to a person drawing pay at the maximum of the scale of pay is in violation of the existing rules. Therefore, their objection to FR 19 is misconceived. If only FR 19 is read as a whole, it can be seen that only when the pay exceeds without sanction of an authority competent to create a post in the same cadre on a rate of pay equal to his pay when increased, that it becomes illegal. So long as the sanction is made by an authority competent it cannot be taken as violative of FR 19. In this case Annexure A-2 is the order approved by the Government of India and the decision was conveyed as per Annexure A-1. If so, FR 19 cannot be a ground for denying the benefits as is now done by the respondents. This contention is therefore devoid of any merit. The next contention advanced is to reckon the one extra increment drawn by them one year prior to their retirement for pension and other pensionary benefits is by way KHAMBHATI 2026.03.23 NILESH 11:47:49+05'30' KANTILAL ::7 :: O.A.No.348/2017 of personal reason and as such it is not 'Pay' as defined in Rule 9 (21). As per Rule 9 (21) (a) "Pay means the amount drawn monthly by a Government servant as (I) the pay, other than special pay or pay granted in view of his personal qualifications, which has been sanctioned for a post held by him substantively or in an officiating capacity, or to which he is entitled by reason of his position in a cadre and (ii) overseas pay, special pay and personal pay and (iii) any other emoluments which may be specifically classified as pay the President". Now in this case, payment of one increment is effected as part of wage settlement and secondly it is given to Grade 'C' officials who are in BSNL and unable to get Grade IV promotion, covered under OTBP/BCR Scheme, one extra increment, one year prior to their retirement was given on certain terms and conditions. Thus it is not the personal pay. By virtue of Clause (b) of Annexure A-1, one extra increment in BCR Grade Ill will be given one year prior to retirement, without the benefit of FR 22(C) to those Group 'C' officials who are in BCR Grade Ill and are unable to get Grade IV promotion. Therefore , I have no doubt in mind to say that what has been granted at Annexure A-I cannot be excluded from the pay Ahmedab and what has been paid is not personal pay as understood. ad Bench 11. In the result, I declare that the benefit of one increment, prior to one year of their retirement as per Annexure A-1 cannot be withdrawn or annulled by Annexure R-(5) and as such the one extra increment should be treated as part and parcel for calculation of pensionary benefits. In case the applicants are not paid the pension amount reckoning the increment so granted, the same shall be revised and paid deducting the actual amount paid, as early as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
4. Further, by following the aforesaid order passed by the CAT Ernakulam Bench, the CAT Chandigarh Bench in an identical case in MA No.060/00583/2017 in OA No.060/00079/2017 vide order dated 24.01.2018 directed the respondents to grant the benefit of one increment, prior to one year of their retirement to the applicants therein and the same cannot be withdrawn or annulled and as such, the one extra increment should be treated as part and parcel for calculation of pensionary benefits. In case, if the applicants are not paid the pension amount reckoning the increment so granted, the same shall be revised and paid deducting the actual amount paid within stipulated time limit.
Thereafter, the CAT - Madras Bench, by referring the order passed by the CAT Chandigarh in case of Jiwan Singh & Anr. v/s.
KHAMBHATI 2026.03.23 NILESH 11:47:49+05'30' KANTILAL ::8 :: O.A.No.348/2017 Union of India & Ors. in OA No.79/2017 dated 24.01.2018 had passed the order dated 17.02.2022 in OA No.2018/2017 wherein it was held that the respondents are not entitled to withdraw the benefits i.e. the extra increment granted which has formed the part and parcel of calculation of pensionary benefits.
5. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicants submits that on the basis of the orders passed by the various benches of this Tribunal, the present case is also required to be concluded as the same are squarely applicable to the present case.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Joy Mathew, learned counsel for the BSNL would argue that the very claim of the applicants has been Ahmedab taken up for necessary sanctioned and proposal by the DoT. In ad Bench response to it, the DoT vide its letter dated 04.11.2011 (Annexure R/1) did not agree to it.
The applicant originally belongs to the DoT and therefore, the respondent-BSNL cannot accept the claim of the applicants.
7. On the otherhand, the respondent No.1, Ms.R.R.Patel would also argue that the claim of the applicants as such considered by the competent authority i.e. DoT and the same had not been acceded to because of the communication dated 04.11.2011, which is not under challenged. Therefore, the applicants are not entitled for relief as sought for.
8. Mr.Joy Mathew, learned counsel for the respondents submits that some of the applicants have expired during the pendency of this OA. In response to it, Mr. M.S.Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicants submits that whatsoever right accrued from the date of filing of the OA is required to be considered and given to the family of the applicant.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on record.
KHAMBHATI 2026.03.23 NILESH 11:47:49+05'30' KANTILAL ::9 :: O.A.No.348/2017
10. At the outset, it is required to state that issue involved in the present case in respect of grant of one extra increment in BRC Grade- III one year prior to retirement is now not in res integra. It can be seen that the CAT Ernakulam Bench in OA No.91/2011 vide order dated 15.03.2012 have categorically held as noted hereinabove. The same has been followed by CAT- Chandigarh Bench and subsequently followed by CAT Madras Bench in OA No.2018/2017 vide order dated 17.2.2017. It suffices to state that the decision of the DoT dated 04.11.2011 (Annexure R/1) which has been referred to by the CAT Ernakulam to justify their stand to deny the claim of the applicant therein and after considering the same, CAT Ernakulam Bench passed the order as referred hereinabove. In absence of any Ahmedab material contrary to it, we have no hesitation to accept the submission ad Bench of the learned counsel for the applicants.
11. In view of the above, the OA is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the benefits of grant of one extra increment in BRC Grade-III one year prior to retirement the one extra increment should be treated as part and parcel for calculation of pensionary benefits. Further, in case the applicants are not paid the pension amount reckoning the increment so granted, the same shall be revised and paid deducting the actual amount paid, as early as possible, preferable within 90 days months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. It is made clear that any arrears, if payable to the applicants, the same shall be paid w.e.f. the date of filing of the OA i.e. 24.04.2017. It is expected that within 90 days from the receipt of a certified copy of this order, the respondents shall complete their exercise as directed hereinabove and intimate the decision forthwith.
(Dr.Hukum Singh Meena) (Jayesh V.Bhairavia)
Member (A) Member (J)
nk
KHAMBHATI
2026.03.23
NILESH
11:47:49+05'30'
KANTILAL