Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
V.R. Gopalakrishnan Nair vs The Chief General Manager (Telecom) on 13 September, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A. NO. 797 OF 2010
Tuesday, this the 13th day of September, 2011
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
V.R. Gopalakrishnan Nair
S/o. Raghavan Nair
Telecom Mechanic
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Office of the Sub-Divisional Engineer (P-II)
Pathanamthitta.
Residing at "Chaithanya"
Imalimekku, Omalloor (P.O)
Pathanamthitta District
Pin - 689 647. - Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy)
Versus
1. The Chief General Manager (Telecom)
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd,
Kerala Circle, Trivandrum.
2. The General Manager, (Telecom)
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
Telecom District,
Pathanamthitta Secondary Switching Area
Thiruvalla.
3. The Accounts Officer (Est)
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
Office of the General Manager, Telecom District,
Pathanamthitta Secondary Switching Area
Thiruvalla. - Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. N. Nagaresh)
The application having been heard on 25.08.2011, the Tribunal on
13.09.2011 delivered the following:
O R D E R
HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER This O.A has been filed for a declaration that the applicant is entitled to have his pay in the cadre of Telecom Mechanic stepped up on par with his juniors who were promoted as Telecom Mechanics and granted the benefit of fixation of pay under F.R.22(I)(a)(1) with effect from 01.10.2000 or thereafter with all consequential benefits of arrears of pay and allowances arising therefrom and direct the respondents accordingly.
2. The applicant is presently working as Telecom Mechanic of Pathanamthitta Telecom District of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). He commenced his service as casual labourer and was granted temporary status with effect from 01.10.1989 and later regularised as Group-D employee in the Department of Telecom. On successfully completing the Telecom Mechanic Training, he was initially granted the scale of pay of Lineman and later promoted as Telecom Mechanic in the scale of Rs. 3200-4900 with effect from 06.07.1999. The BSNL was formed with effect from 01.10.2000. With effect from that date the Central Dearness Allowance (CDA) pattern of pay scales was replaced by the Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) pattern of pay scales. The applicant's pay as on 01.10.2000 in the replacement scale was fixed at Rs. 4670/-. But those who continued to be in Group-D scale of pay as on 01.10.2000 either on account of being the juniors or on account of having failed at the end of the Telecom Mechanic Training and who were promoted thereafter or those who were promoted on 16.08.2000 with their increments falling on 01.10.2000, were all granted their pay upon promotion and fixation of pay as Telecom Mechanics at a stage higher that of the applicant. On making a representation, the pay of the applicant was also fixed at par with his juniors. However, subsequently his pay was reduced and some overpayment was also recovered. The representation dated 01.06.2009 submitted by the applicant to the 2nd respondent has not elicited any response so far. Aggrieved, he has filed this O.A.
3. The applicant submits that he is entitled to have his pay stepped up with effect from 01.10.2000 on par with his juniors who were granted the benefit of fixation of pay under F.R.22(I)(a)(1) with effect from 01.10.2000 or thereafter on being promoted to the post of Telecom Mechanic. The denial of stepping up of pay to the applicant results in substantial prejudice and irreparable injury resulting in violation of the equality clauses enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
4. The respondents in their reply statement submitted that with regard to the issue of juniors drawing higher pay than the seniors after recent pay revision, BSNL has issued necessary orders as per order F.No.250-5/2005- Pers III (pt) dated 30.08.2010 (Annexure R2(a). The averment that the pay of the applicant was reduced and recovery of over-payments commenced is incorrect and hence denied. The applicant is not eligible for any relief sought for in this O.A.
5. We have heard Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. N. Nagresh, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
6. The legal issue in this O.A is already settled by this Tribunal vide order dated 30.05.2011 in O.A. No. 719/10. The relevant part of the order is extracted as under :
"2. Heard both sides. We may at first consider the contentions of the respondents that the anomalous situation has been rectified by Annexure R-4(k) order. As a matter of fact the contentions now raised has been considered by us in an earlier OA 846/10 dated 14.01.2011. it was held therein in para 7 of the order as follows:-
" Interestingly, the respondents do not claim that by issuing the letter dated 30.08.2010, the problem of senior drawing less pay than his junior is solved. The fact is that it does not redress the grievance of the applicant. The personal allowance that was granted vide Annexure - R2
(m) would not count for any other purpose like pension, D.A. etc. Not counting the personal allowance for the purpose of pay including the pension and D.A will result in the anomaly of senior drawing less emoluments or pension, as the case may be, than his junior. Annexure R2(m) dated 30.08.2010 does not meet out full justice to the applicant. Therefore, in our considered view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as per the settled law that the applicant is entitled to have his pay stepped up on par with his juniors who were promoted as Telecom mechanics and granted the benefit of fixation of pay under FR 22 (I)(a)(i) with effect from 01.10.2000 or thereafter with all consequential benefits of arrears of pay and allowances arising therefrom. Accordingly, we order as under."
3. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Gurcharan Singh Grewal and Another vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 578, and held that the settled principle of law is that a senior cannot be paid a lesser salary than his junior. Reference was also made to the decision in Union of India and Others vs. P. Jagdish and Others, AIR 1997 SC 1783 wherein also, the Apex Court upheld the principle of stepping up of pay to remove the anomaly of juniors getting higher pay than their seniors. In the case of OA 846/10 a direction was issued to step up the pay of the applicant and to grant all consequential benefits of arrears of pay and allowances. In the light of the above, we repel the contentions that the grievance of the applicant stands redressed by Annexure R-4(k) order. xxxxxx
4. OA is allowed as above. No costs."
7. The order No. F.No.250-5/2005-Pers.III (pt) dated 30.08.2010 at Annexure R2(a) (Anenxure R-4(k) in O.A. No. 719/2010) does not solve the problem of senior drawing less pay than his junior. The applicant herein is similarly placed as the applicants in O.A. Nos. 719/10 and 846/10. Following the decisions of this Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 846/10 and 719/10 and the settled law that similarly situated persons should be treated similarly, we have no hesitation in allowing this O.A. It is ordered so. The respondents are directed to step up the pay of the applicant on par with his juniors who were promoted as Telecom Mechanics and granted the benefit of fixation of pay under F.R.22(I)(a)(1) with effect from 01.10.2000 or thereafter and benefits of arrears of pay and allowances arising therefrom within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. The O.A is allowed as above with no order as to costs.
(Dated, 13th September, 2011)
K. GEORGE JOSEPH JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
cvr.