Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Shailendra Kumar Jamuar vs Bsnl on 8 April, 2025
1 OA No. 178 of 2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
O.A. No. 050/00178 of 2018
Reserved on: 5th March, 2025.
Pronounced on: 08.04.2025.
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER [A]
HON'BLE MR. RAJVEER SINGH VERMA, MEMBER [J]
1. Shailendra Kumar Jamuar, aged about 45 years, Son of Late Surendra
Prasad, resident of P & T Colony, Qtr. No. 73, Type-II, Kidwaipuri, P.S.
Kotwali, District - Patna-800001.
2. Madan Kumar, aged about 45 years, Son of Shri Nathan Prasad, resident
of Village and P.O. Sahugarh (Hulas), P.S. Madhepura, District
Madhepura.
3. Ashok Kumar, son of Late Ram Pratap Pandit, resident of Village Teyai,
P.O. Dadpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District - Begusarai.
4. Arun Kumar, son of Late Jagdish Paswan, resident of Village & Post
Susta, Via. Ramna, District - Muzaffarpur-842002.
5. Amrendra Kumar, aged about 42 years, Son of Late Akhilanand Singh,
resident of Village and P.O. -Sheikhpura, District - Arwal.
6. Sanjeev Kumar, aged about 40 years, Son of Late Amrendra Prasad,
resident of Village Simri, P.O. Kansi Simri, District - Darbhanga.
7. Manoj Kumar, aged about 49 years, Son of Late B.P. Ambastha, resident
of Mohalla Shashtri Nagar, P.S. Shastri Nagar, District Patna.
8. Shahid Karim, aged about 38 years, So of Late M.A. Hasnain, resident of
Mohalla - Digha, P.O. + P.S. - Digha, District Patna.
9. Manoj Kumar Chaudhary, aged about 45 years, Son of Late Indradeo
Chaudhary, resident of Mohalla Indra Nagar, Rajapur, P.S. Patliputra,
District - Patna.
10. Ajay Kumar, aged about 41 years, Son of Late Chandra Deo Prasad,
resident of Village and P.O. Khatangi, P.S. -Kurtha, District Arwal-
824235.
11. Sanjeev Kumar Pathak, aged about 45 years, son of Sri Vijay Kumar
Pathak, resident of Village Mahmadi, P.O. -Saraiya Gopal, Via. Patahi,
District - East Champaran.
12. Sundipto Kumar Das Gupta, aged about 44 years, son of Late Deepak
Kumar Das Gupta, resident of Mohalla - Jai Prakash Nagar, P.O. Gaya
HO, P.S. Civil Line Gaya, District Gaya - 823001.
13.Om Prakash Mishra, aged bout 44 years, son of Late Baidya Nath Mishra,
resident of Mohalla P.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, P.O. Kankarbagh, District
- Gaya.
.......... Applicants.
By Advocate: - Mrs. Archana Prasad.
-Versus-
1. Union of India through the Chairman cum Managing Director, Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, Harischandra Mathur Lane, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Additional Director (EA) BSNL Corporate Office 312 Sanchar
Bhawan, 20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001.
2 OA No. 178 of 2018
3. Assistant General Manager (SEA) Corporate Office, Bharat Sanchar
Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
4. Asstt. General Manager (Pers) Bharat Sanchar Bhawan H.C. Mathur Lane,
New Delhi-110001.
5. Chief General Manager Telecom Bihar Circle, Patna-800001.
6. Chief General Manager ETP BSNL 2/5A Judges Court Road, Door
Sanchar Bhawan, Alipur, Kolkata-700027.
7. Principal General Manager Telecom Project, CTTC Building, Budh Marg,
Patna-800001.
........ Respondents.
By Advocate: - Shri Subodh Kumar.
ORDER
Per:- Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
1. Instant OA has been filed by the applicant for the following relief: -
"(a) That the impugned letter dated 29.7.2016 (Annexure-A/21) may be declared illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and be quashed.
(b) That the respondents be directed to fix the initial pay of the applicants on the post of Junior Accounts Officer (JAO) likewise the other junior Accounts officers, who qualified the JAO examination in the year 2010 giving benefit of basic pay of pre revised scale on 1.1.2007 + DA 78 2% and fitment benefit.
(c) That any other relief or reliefs as your lordships may deem fit and proper."
2. Brief facts of the case of the applicants are that: -
(i) All the applicants are Junior Accounts Officers working under the BSNL.
(ii) That before formation of BSNL w.e.f. 1.10.2000, before enforcement of new recruitment rules under BSNL, for promotion and appointment on the post of JAO under the departmental 40% quota, the eligible group C and D officials had to pass departmental examination of JAO part-I and part-II conducted by the department of Telecommunication time to time, under the DOT. Recruitment Rules. As per the said rule a candidate may appear Part-I and Part-II examination several times to qualify the said examination. That after formation of BSNL w.e.f. 1.10.2000 all the group 'C' and group 'D' employees were absorbed in BSNL permanently w.e.f. 1.10.2000.
Therefore, it was decided to grant special examinations to those candidates who were exempted in JAO part-1 and Part-II examination in certain papers in the examination conducted by the 3 OA No. 178 of 2018 Department of Telecom during the transit period for qualifying the remaining papers (as per DOT Syllabus) in the JAO examination. Therefore, a detailed guideline for JAO Part I & Part-II examination under old syllabus was issued by the Additional Director General BSNL New Delhi in his letter dated 9.9.2002 (Annexure-A/1). In the said guide line, it was specifically mentioned at Para A.5 that a candidate can attempt two times part I exam and one time Part-II exam. in first year and again 2 times Part-II exam in 2nd year as per old syllabus.
(iii) Thereafter the Assistant Director General (SEA) BSNL New Delhi issued letter dated 13.10.2003 for conducting the next JAO part-I examination (the last one) under the old syllabus as per the JAO Recruitment Rules of DOT. The eligibility conditions such as age, educational qualifications, service etc. will be as per the old JAO recruitment rules only under "special relaxation." Accordingly, Syllabus was issued for JAO Part-I and Part-II examination under modified old syllabus.
(iv) That JAO Part-I examination was held on 27.05.2007 and the applicants appeared in the said examination. Result was published on 01.07.2009 and 371 candidates including all the applicants qualified Part-I screening test. Thereafter, JAO Part-II examination was held on 06.01.2010 and result of said examination was published on 25.03.2010 wherein applicants were not found place in the said result.
(v) It is further stated that as per the terms and conditions of the department two examination of Part-I and two examinations of Part- II were not held within time however the benefit of Scheme, eligibility condition, and to appear in part II examination two times 4 OA No. 178 of 2018 under old syllabus were given properly. Therefore, the second Part- II examination (Supplementary) examination under 40% quota was announced to be held on 17, 18 and 19 December, 2012 to fill up the remaining JAOS vacant posts shown in letter dated 20.8.2009 (Annexure-A/8) under the Scheme/Syllabus and pattern circulated in letter dated 12.10.2004 (Annexure-A/3). Further the said examination was declared to be the last examination under old syllabus. Accordingly vide letter dated 3.9.2012 applications were called for from the candidates and the last date was fixed on 6.10.2012 for receiving the applications.
(vi) That JAO Part-II Second examination was held on 17,18 and 19 December, 2012, all the applicants were appeared in the said examination. Result was published on 12.07.2013 and all the applicants declared qualified in the said examination and all the applicants joined on the post of JAO after completion of training.
(vii) The case of the applicants is that the Asstt. General Manager (SEA) New Delhi issued letter dated 24.7.2015 whereby the JAOs 2010 batch who got promotion to Executive Grade between the period 1.1.2007 and 7.5.2010 were allowed to exercise options for fixation of their pay in the revised pay from the date of promotion in the grade of JAO as on time and the applicants were denied to give option since they were promoted in JAO in the examination 2012. As such a discrimination was done by the respondents between the applicants and those whose joined as JAO in the year 2010 though they all recruited out of one and the same notification. As such the pay of JAOs of 2010 batch whose basic pay was Rs. 9,850/- were fixed initially Rs. 22,820/- giving benefit of basic pay (prerevised) Rs. 9850 + DA 78.2% and fitment as on 1.1.07 and placed in the pay 5 OA No. 178 of 2018 of Rs. 16,400 -40500/- but the pay of applicants was fixed on Rs. 16400/- initially in the JAO grade. As a discrimination was done in the fixation of pay of applicants and they were allowed to receive lesser pay. The applicants were denied the benefits as given to those JAOs who joined in the year 2010.
3. It is the contention of the counsel for applicants that the applicants (JAOs) and those JAOs who passed in 2010 were recruited out of one and the same notification, conditions and recruitment rules. They passed JAO part-I and Part-II examination as per one and the same orders and relaxation given by the Department. Therefore, their services cannot be treated by two-yard strikes. Further when the option was called for vide letter dated 24.7.2015 the applicant were also JAOs along with those JAOs whose result were published in the year 2010. Therefore, as per equity and fairness the option of the applicants should have been accepted. Applicants submitted several representations, including dated 05.08.2015 & 20.08.2015 but their representations were rejected vide 29.07.2016. Hence, the OA.
4. Respondents have filed written statement wherein it is stated that pay of applicants was fixed in the scale of JAO on joining as JAO in August 2013 and the pay of JAO (Dept.) of 2010 batch as per order dated 24.07.2015 is by virtue of their promotion from Non- Executive to Executive grade and their eligibility to exercise the option as per BSNL's non-executive wage revision order dated 07.05.2010 and further clarification dated 18.05.2011 (Annexure-
16) which clarified that "The non-executives, who got promotion /financial upgradation under ACP scheme from non-executive grade to Executive grade between the period 01.01.2007 i.e. the date of revision of IDA pay scale and 07.05.2010 i.e. date of issuance of 6 OA No. 178 of 2018 office order no. 1-16/2010-PAT(BSNL) may be allowed to exercise of option for fixation of pay in the revised pay from the date of their promotion/financial upgradation under ACP scheme". On this ground BSNL vide letter dated 24.07.2015 accorded the approval that JAO of 2010 (promoted in JAO before 07.05.2010) to exercise the option for fixation of pay in the revised pay from the date of promotion. As far as JAO (Dept) 2012 batch JAO, request for allowing them option for fixation of pay of promotion in the grade of JAO, it is intimated that Qualifying the JAO (Main Exam.) which is held subsequently to screening test is must for promotion to the grade of JAO and qualifying in the screening test cannot be the ground for claiming parity/ equality with JAO's of 2010 batch who qualified in the JAO (Main Examination) before the date of issue of Non-Executive wage revision order dated 07.05.2010 which is not the case with JAO (Departmental) of 2012 batch. Counsel for respondents requests to dismiss the OA.
5. Applicants has filed rejoinder and stated the similar facts as narrated in the OA.
6. Heard learned counsels for parties and considered the submissions.
An Analysis
(i) After formation of BSNL w.e.f. 01.10.2000, the policy has decided to granted special examination to those candidates who were exempted in JAO Part-1 and Part II examination in certain papers in the examination conducted by the Department of Telecommunications during the transit period for qualifying the remaining papers in the JAO examination.
(ii) The JAO Part I examination was conducted on 27.05.2007 and applicants appeared in the said examination. Result was published on 7 OA No. 178 of 2018 01.07.2009 and 371 candidates including all the applicants qualified Part I examination.
(iii) JAO Part II examination was held on 06.11.2010 and result of said examination was declared on 25.03.2020 wherein applicants were not qualified. However, several others were declared qualified.
(iv) Supplementary examination of JAO Part-II was conducted on 17, 18 and 19 December 2012 and all the applicants declared qualified in the result of this examination published on 12.07.2013.
(v) Vide letter dated 24.07.2015, the respondent authorities have allowed JAOs 2010 batch who got promotion to executive grade between 01.01.2007 to 07.05.2010 to exercise options for fixation of their pay in revised pay from the date of promotion in the grade of JAO on time.
(vi) The applicants were denied to exercise such option since they were promoted after qualifying the examination 2010 result of which was declared on 12.07.2013.
(vii) As a result thereof, there is a disparity between pay of the applicants and the JAOs of 2010 batch.
(viii) It is the case of applicants that respondents have created artificial and arbitrary distinction between the JAO 2010 batch and applicants (2012 batch) and their services cannot be treated by two yardsticks.
(ix) The state is under constitutional obligation to ensure that equal pay is paid for equal work. Article 39 (d) contained in part IV of the Constitution of India ordering the state to direct its policy towards securing "equal pay for equal work" for both man and woman. Though Article 39 is included in the chapter of Directive Principles of State of Policy but it is fundamental in nature. The purpose of Article is to fix certain social and economic goals for avoiding any 8 OA No. 178 of 2018 discrimination amongst the people doing similar work in matter relating to pay.
(x) On the other hand, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of UP VS Pratap Narain Chaddha (2001) 9 SCC 310 have negatived the plea of discrimination and have upheld the classification employees for the purpose of pay scales having regard to diverse criteria.
(xi) The Division Bench of the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Madan Gopal Singh Vs Union of India 1976 (2) SLR 353 has enunciated the proposition that it is to the government to have regard to the superior ability, experience and long period of service of an officer, and as an exceptional case, raise the pay scale for that particular officer.
(xii)It is also held by Hon'ble Court in Madan Gopal Singh's case (supra) that an authority for the proposition that sanctioning of pay scale for a particular post was a matter turning on administrative policy and in the formulation of such policy of government servant was not entitled to be heard.
(xiii) The Supreme Court in Marathwada Agriculture University Vs Marathwada Krishi Vidhyapith (2007) 8 SCC 497 have held that there can, therefore, be no doubt that equations of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had erupt in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and court's interference is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice.
9 OA No. 178 of 2018
(xiv) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Employees' welfare Vs Union of India (1989) 3 SC 188 observed as under:-
"In other words, where unequal pay has brought about a discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution, it will be a case of 'equal pay for equal work', as envisaged by Article 14 of the Constitution. If the classification is proper and reasonable and has a nexus to the object sought to be achieved, the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" will not have any applications even though the person doing the same work and are not getting the same pay. In short, so long as it is not a case of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution, the abstract doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work, as envisaged by Article 39 (d) of the Constitution, has no manner of application, not is it enforceable in view of Article 37 of the Constitution."
(xv) In the instant case the classification is made by the respondents on the basis of selection year and length of service of employees of 2010 batch allowed to exercise the option for fixation of pay in the revised pay form vide letter dated 24.07.2015 vide which the officers promoted to JAO up to 07.05.2010 and officers promoted to the JAO later on, i.e. on as result published on 12.07.2013 of JAO Part II examination 2012 were denied from such option appears to be a reasonable classification based on administration prudence and administrative expertness of the respondents. The classification so made by the respondent does not appear to be discriminatory or arbitrary in nature and therefore, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' as envisaged under Article 39 (d) of the Constitution is not applicable in the matter.
10 OA No. 178 of 2018
7. In view of above factual analysis and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of cases, the present OA is devoid of merit. As a result thereof it is dismissed. All pending MAs are also disposed of accordingly.
8. No order as to costs.
[Rajveer Singh Verma] [Kumar Rajesh Chandra]
Member [J] Member [A]
BP/-