Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Shiv Kumar Behl vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 4 July, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A. No. 60/804/2018
With
MA No.1607/2019
Reserved on: 04.07.2025
Pronounced on: 01.08.2025
HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)
Shiv Kumar Behl, Aged 65 years, S/o Sh. Ram Lal Behl, Principal Chief
Engineer (Retd.) Civil Wing, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Northern
Telecom Region, New Delhi. Now resident of Flat No.923, Golf
Meadows Prelude, Barwala Road, Derabassi, Distt. Mohali (Punjab-
140201).
...Applicant
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. R.K. Sharma).
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecommunications,
Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001.
[Deleted vide order dated 20.12.2018]
2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (A Govt. of India Enterprise),
through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Corporate Office,
Personnel-I Section, 4th Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpat,
New Delhi-110001.
3. Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Northern
Telecom Region, Kidwai Bhawan, Eastern Court Building,
Janpath, New Delhi-110001.
4. Principal Controller of Communication Accounts, Department of
Telecom, DTO Office, Prashad Nagar, New Delhi-110005.
[Deleted vide order dated 20.12.2018]
...Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. K.K. Thakur for R1 & R4 and Mr. Anish Babbar for
R2 & 3).
Satyan Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=
arayana
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb734
425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=
342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2e
Vanapa
a8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=
Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.08.01 14:14:34+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
lli
2
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:
"i) Quash Order dated 28.03.2016 (Annexure A-1), whereby representation of the applicant for restoration of his correct pay scale of Rs.62000-80000 as Chief Engineer, BSNL w.e.f.
31.08.2005 and proper pay fixation therein has been denied by respondent no.3 despite clarification issued by the Corporate Office i.e. respondent no.2 vide clarification dated 12.12.2013 and 24.12.2013 and the fact that all the other incumbents of the cadre of the applicant including his juniors have been granted the same benefit throughout the country.
ii) Quash decision dated 07.11.2017 of the Corporate Office as obtained by the applicant under RTI Act (Annexure A-2), with reference to his representation dated 21.10.2017, whereby it has been left to the circle office CGMT, NTR, to be competent in the matter of pay fixation, by illegally ignoring the fact that clarification had already been issued by the office of respondent no.2 and the same was followed throughout the country and the applicant only was singled out and discriminated against.
iii) Quash the pay fixation done by the CGMT, NTR, respondent no.3 whereby reducing the pay of the applicant in the pay scale of Rs.62000-80000 scale of Principal Chief Engineer/Chief Engineer to Rs.18500-450-13900/Rs.43200- 66000 the scale of Superintending Engineer with Special Pay of Rs.1000/- / Rs.2000/- per month w.e.f. 85,496/- out of leave encashment vide order dated 20.05.2013 and 09.09.2013 (Annexure A3 and Annexure A4) in violation of the provisions of the Government of India decision no.4 below Fundamental Rule 35 and the clarification issued by the Corporate Office on 12.12.2013 and 24.12.2013, which has been uniformly followed in all other cases except the case of the applicant, thus discriminated against him alone.
iv) Directions may be issued to the respondents to restore pay fixation of the applicant done by the CGMT, BSNL, Punjab Circle in the year 2008 & 2011 in the scale of Rs.23750-600-28500/- / Rs.62000-80000 at the time of his promotion on adhoc basis as Chief Engineer w.e.f. 31.08.2005, which was in terms of Government of India decision no.4, below Fundamental Rule 35 and in tune with pay fixation of one Sh. Krishan Kumar, Chief Engineer, BSNL, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur has also been agreed to by the Corporate Office on the relevant file while dealing with Satyan Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU= arayana CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb734 425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode= 342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2e Vanapa a8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.01 14:14:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 lli 3 the case of the applicant as is clear from the RTI Information obtained by the applicant vide letter dated 03.08.2013 and to restore all the consequential benefits including refund of amount of Rs.7,85,496/- which was deducted out of leave encashment in September, 2013 after his retirement on 31.05.2013, without issuing any show cause notice or offer of opportunity, alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date amount became due till actual date of payment and also to release the revised retiral benefits as a consequence of restoration of the correct pay fixation of the applicant."
2. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:
I. The applicant initially joined as Assistant Executive Engineer in the erstwhile P&T Civil Wing in the Department of Telecommunications through Union Public Service Commission on 02.11.1977. On the basis of his eligibility and suitability, applicant promoted as Executive Engineer on adhoc basis on 09.06.1982 and regularly promoted as such w.e.f. 14.02.1983.
He was promoted as Superintending Engineer on adhoc basis on 28.12.1994 as per his turn and eligibility but this adhoc promotion continued for a period of 10 years. The applicant was regularized as Superintending Engineer in January, 2005 against the post, which he had been occupying since 1995 and as per recommendations of the DPC, his regular promotion as Superintending Engineer was also against the vacancy year 1994-95. Superintending Engineer at that Scale of time was Rs.14300-18300 with Rs.400/- Annual Increment. Copy of promotion order of the applicant as Superintending Engineer is attached as Annexure A-5 and copy of information obtained under RTI Act on 25.09.2013 showing his promotion as on adhoc basis was against a vacancy for the year 1994-95 is attached as Annexure A-6.
Satyan Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU= arayana CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb734 425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode= 342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2e Vanapa a8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.01 14:14:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 lli 4 II. The next channel of promotion from the post of Superintending Engineer is to the post of Chief Engineer for which 4 years regular service was required as Superintending Engineer. Since the applicant had rendered sufficient service continuously from January, 1995 followed by regular, which was to be relegated to original date as in many of the cases this adhoc service was treated as regular for the purpose of promotion as Chief Engineer by virtue of court orders and otherwise also. Consequently, the applicant was promoted as adhoc Chief Engineer in August, 2005 in the in the pay scale of Rs.18400-22400 with Annual Increment of Rs.500/-. A copy of pay fixation order dated 05.10.2005 of the applicant is annexed as Annexure A7. At that time the basic pay of the applicant was Rs.18700/- in the CDA scale of Rs.14300-18300 with one stagnation increment. Vide order dated 28.12.2005 (Annexure A8), applicant was absorbed in BSNL w.e.f. 01.10.2000. BSNL was following IDA Pay Scales and resultantly regular pay scale of the Superintending Engineer was Rs.17500-400-22300 at the time of absorption of the applicant, which was subsequently upgraded with retrospective effect from 01.10.2000 to Rs.18500-450-23900. Basic pay of the applicant as S.E. in IDA pay scale of Rs.18500-450-23900 was fixed as Rs.23900/- vide order dated 08.12.2008 (Annexure A-10). Subsequently on 26.08.2005, the applicant was promoted as Chief Engineer on adhoc basıs w.e.f. August, 2005 and pay scale of the applicant on promotion as Chief Engineer, adhoc in the IDA pay scale of the Chief Engineer was Rs.23750-600-28550/-. The applicant was drawing basic as S.E. more than the minimum of the scale of Chief Satyan Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU= arayana CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb734 425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode= 342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2e Vanapa a8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.01 14:14:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 lli 5 III. Engineer i.e. his pay being Rs.23900/- Superintending as Engineer and the scale of Chief Engineer being Rs.23750-600- 28550/-, his pay was correctly fixed at Rs.24950/- in terms of Government of India decision No.4 below Fundamental Rule 35. A copy of pay fixation of the applicant as Adhoc Chief Engineer w.e.f. August, 2005 is attached as Annexure A-11 and copy of Government India decision No.4 below Fundamental Rule 35 is attached as Annexure A-12. The pay scale of BSNL employees were revised as per recommendations of the second Pay Revision Committee w.e.f. 01.01.2007 in view of Presidential Notification issued by the department of Telecom in terms of notification/circular issued by the department of Public Enterprises and as per this notification pay scale of Chief Engineer in IDA scale was Rs.62000-80000. A copy of notification dated 05.03.2009 is attached as Annexure A-13.
IV. The applicant was promoted as regular Chief Engineer w.e.f.
15.12.2008 in the scale of Rs. 62000-80000 vide order dated 05.05.2009 (Annexure A14) and pay drawn by him as officiating/ adhoc Chief Engineer was continued as he got pay fixation done at the time of his adhoc promotion as Chief Engineer. At the time when the applicant was posted in BSNL Punjab Circle, though Punjab Circle had granted benefit of pay scale of Chief engineer before 01.01.2007, presumably keeping in view Government of India decision No.4, below FR 35, however, while fixing his pay as Chief Engineer as per 2nd PRC, instead of granting the regular pay scale of Rs.62000-80000 in IDA scale of Chief Engineer, fixed pay of the applicant in the lower scale of Rs.43200-66000, which was meant for JAG/ Superintending Satyan Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU= arayana CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb734 425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode= 342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2e Vanapa a8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.01 14:14:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 lli 6 Engineer w.e.f. 01.01.2007, which was obviously wrong and as pay of the applicant had already been fixed in the scale of Chief Engineer before 2nd PRC, so it could not have been reduced and fixed in the lower scale, particularly when the basic principle of Government of India Decision No.4 below FR 35 remained the same. While fixing pay of the applicant in the scale Superintending Engineer 31.08.2005 01.01.2007/-, of Rs.18500- 450-23900 Rs.43200-66000 w.e.f. w.e.f. and only Rs.1000/- /Rs.2000/- was granted as Special Allowance for holding post of Chief Engineer on adhoc basis (Annexure A-15). The applicant represented to the Principal General Manager (BW), BSNL Corporate Office, New Delhi through Chief General Manager Telecom, Punjab Telecom Circle, BSNL, Chandigarh for fixation of his pay on the parity of Sh. Krishan Lal, Chief Engineer, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur inter-alia showing that instead of fixing pay under Fundamental Rule 35, it should be fixed under Govt. of India decision No.4 below FR 35 and on the same basis and parity as in the case of Krishan Kumar. A copy of representation dated 23.12.2010 is attached as Annexure A-16. After receipt of representation, Punjab Circle Respondent No.2 and re-fixed the pay of the applicant correctly in line with pay fixation of Sh. Krishan Kumar, Chief Engineer, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur vide order dated 20.01.2011 (Annexure A-17). Subsequently applicant was transferred from Punjab Circle to NTR Circle, New Delhi in June, 2011 and he was paid increments for the years 2011 and 2012 in the regular pay scale of Rs.62000-80000 in continuation of his pay fixation done in the said 01.01.2007. The applicant was to attain the age of Satyan Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU= arayana CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb734 425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode= 342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2e Vanapa a8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.01 14:14:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 lli 7 superannuation on 31.05.2013 on attaining the age of 60 years and the office of NTR, New Delhi without any notice were intending to reduce his pay and consequently, he approached the Principal Bench, New Delhi through two Original Applications No.1664/2013 and 2577/2013 for restraining the respondents from reducing the pay of the applicant and payment of retiral benefits. However, interim order was passed during the pendency of the afore-mentioned litigation that respondents should release pay and allowances to the applicant as per their own understanding as admissible (Annexure A-20). Since the respondents had illegally reduced the pay of the applicant and affected recovery, so he made representation on 10.05.2013 (Annexure A-21).
V. The respondents released retirement benefits of the applicant at reduced pay i.e. by giving him the pay scale of Chief Engineer i.e. Rs.62000-80000 w.e.f. 15.12.2008 instead of 01.01.2007 and they have affected recovery of Rs.7,85,496/- w.e.f.31.08.2005 out of leave encashment and fixed his retiral benefits at reduced rate and thus putting him to loss of about Rs.7500/- per month, without any notice.
However, due to family circumstances, applicant had to come to Punjab and he was settled at Derabassi, he could not pursue the Original Applications, which were dismissed in default (Annexure A22 and A23). In the meantime, with reference to letter of the Circle Office, NTR to the Corporate Office, clarification was issued by the office of Respondent No.2 on 12.12.2013 and 24.12.2013 that since the applicant had been drawing basic pay more than minimum of the pay scale as Chief Engineer at the time of his Satyan Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU= arayana CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb734 425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode= 342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2e Vanapa a8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.01 14:14:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 lli 8 adhoc promotion as Chief Engineer, so his case was covered under Government of India decision No.4 below Fundamental Rule 35 and pay fixation should be done accordingly. Copies of decision of the Corporate Office dated 12.12.2013 and 24.12.2013 are attached as Annexure A-24 and A-25. The Corporate Office with reference to queries raised by the CGMT, NTR Circle, issued clarification on 21.07.2014 (Annexure A26) that pay in this case was to be fixed keeping in view Govt. of India decision No.4 below FR 35. Instead of following the mandate of the Corporate Office, CGM, NTR, New Delhi again referred the pay fixation containing two proposals one under FR 35 and one under Govt. of India decision No.4, below FR 35 vide letter dated 09.10.2014 (Annexure A-27). The office of respondent No.2 again referred matter back to CGM, NTR, New Delhi vide letter dated 11.03.2015 (Annexure A28) directing that the pay fixation done by the NTR, New Delhi was not correct and they should fix pay in view of clarification issued on 12.12.2013 and 24.12.2013 and upholding pay fixation done by the Punjab Circle. The said order was issued after detailed discussion on the noting of the file, which has been obtained by the applicant under RTI Act on 08.05.2015 (Annexure A29) which inter-alia shows that the pay fixation done by the Punjab Circle before relieving the applicant for joining under NTR was correctly done.
Instead of following afore-mentioned mandate, Respondent No.3 rejected representation of the applicant vide order dated 28.03.2016 (Annexure A-1). The applicant after collecting material again represented to the Corporate office on Satyan Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU= arayana CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb734 425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode= 342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2e Vanapa a8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.01 14:14:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 lli 9 21.10.2017 against the illegal order passed by NTR (Annexure A30).
VI. The Corporate Office has filed representation of the applicant on 07.11.2017. However, applicant was not conveyed any decision. Therefore, he sought information under RTI Act and he was conveyed that his representation has been filed. A copy of information obtained by the applicant under RTI Act is attached as Annexure A-2. The net result is that the pay of the applicant was reduced and recoveries were affected without any notice and without any opportunity. He was released retiral benefits and an amount of Rs.7,85,496/- was deducted out of his leave encashment. A copy of wrong pay fixation order including recovery order of Rs.7.85,496/- is attached as Annexure A-3 & A-4.
VII. It is submitted by the applicant that as per information of the applicant no individual incumbent of the cadre of the applicant, who is similarly situated has been put to any disadvantageous position and they have been allowed regular pay scale of Chief Engineer w.e.f. August, 2005 in the pay scale of Rs.23750-600- 28550 and w.e.f. 01.01.2007 (under 2nd PRC) in the scale of Rs.62000-80000, including Sh. Harbhajan Singh, Chief Engineer, NTR, New Delhi (ii) Sh. S.P.S. Grewal, Chief Engineer, NTR, New Delhi, (iii) Sh. V.K. Malhan, Chief Engineer, Arbitration, NTR, New Delhi, (iv) Sh. M.K. Chawla, Chief Engineer, Ahmedabad (v) Sh. V.S. Gupta, Chief Engineer, Pune and Sh. P.K. Gupta, Chief Engineer (Civil) Chennai, (vi) Engineer (Civil), Sh. Α.Κ. Ambala, Mittal, Chief Sh. Jagdish (vi) Chandra, Chief Engineer, Jammu
(vii) Sh. A.k. Gupta, Chief Engineer, PCE (Civil), Bhopal (viii) Sh.
Satyan Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU= arayana CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb734 425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode= 342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2e Vanapa a8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.01 14:14:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 lli 10 M.M.S. Uberoi, General Manager, L&B/C, Ambala, as is evident from information obtained by the applicant under RTI only applicant and it is who has been singled out throughout the country and there cannot be any recovery from the leave encashment and there could be no recovery at the time of retirement in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Versus Rafiq Masih (While Washer), Special Petition (C) 11684 of 2012 Leave decided on
08.07.2014 reported at JT 2014 (8) SC 448 and his pay cannot be re-fixed after about 8 years as correct pay was fixed in 2005, in view of the in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in in Civil Appeal No. 6658/2013 titled Kusheswar Nath Pandey V. State of Bihar and others, reported as JT 2013 (12) SC 193. A copy of information obtained by the applicant, under RTI Act is attached as Annexure A-31 (Colly.).
Since the respondents have illegally deducted amount of Rs.7,85,496/- from the leave encashment of the applicant, of any notice without issuance and without affording any opportunity of being heard. Hence, action of the respondents is against the principles of natural justice as well as against the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled State of Punjab Versus Rafiq Masih etc., reported as 2015 (1) SCT 195, no recovery can be made from the applicant.
Since the respondents have illegally deducted the amount of Rs.7,85,496/- from the leave encashment of the applicant, thus, they have gained wrongful gain and caused wrongful loss to the applicant. Hence, the applicant is entitled to the interest @18% Satyan Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU= arayana CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb734 425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode= 342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2e Vanapa a8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.01 14:14:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 lli 11 per annum from the date amount became due to the applicant till date of payment.
3. Notice was issued to the respondents. The respondents filed written statement on behalf of respondents no.2 & 3 on 23.01.2019 wherein it is submitted as follows:
I. The applicant was promoted as regular Superintending Engineer in the then CDA Scale of Rs.12000-16500 w.e.f. 30.12.2004 and by the order of respondent no.1 (Annexure A-5, page 43 of paper book), Annexure A6 is a matter of record and does not alter the date of promotion of the applicant, as brought out above. The applicant assumed the charge of the said regular post of SE w.e.f. 30.12.2004 (Annexure R2/1). The applicant was promoted as Chief Engineer (Civil) vide order dated 26.08.2005 (A-11) on adhoc basis for a period of one year or till the posts were filled up on regular basis, whichever was earlier, pay to be regulated under FR-35, with no claim for regularization or seniority etc in the CE (Civil) grade. This order was issued by the answering respondents and is not under challenge. The applicant assumed the charge as adhoc Chief Engineer (Civil) on 31.08.2005. The applicant was absorbed in BSNL vide Presidential order dated 28.11.2005 (A-8) with terms and conditions placed at page 52 of the paper book.
Accordingly, his pay was fixed, w.e.f. 01.10.2000 in the corresponding IDA pay scales vide order dated 08.12.2008 (Annexure A10). This fixation is also not under challenge. Annexure A7 is of no effect.
II. It is averred by the respondents that the absorption of the applicant was on account of an exercise of option by the Satyan Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU= arayana CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb734 425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode= 342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2e Vanapa a8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.01 14:14:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 lli 12 applicant voluntarily confiding fully in the terms and conditions as per Annexure A/9. Since the absorption was w.e.f. 01.10.2000, when admittedly the applicant was holding the post of Executive Engineer, his pay came to be fixed as reflected in Annexure A/10. The fixation of pay and the corresponding IDA pay scales are duly accepted. Fixation at Rs.23,900/- is not in dispute which is as per FR-35 as explained in Annexure A1. This admission on the part of the applicant coupled with submissions made above capped with the fact that the applicant had confided in the relief before the Principal Bench, the OA is rendered infructuous, to be dismissed with heavy costs. The applicant was promoted to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) on adhoc basis, with other stipulations, vide office order dated 26.08.2005. He assumed the charge, as such, on 31.08.2005.
Annexure A11 is the order of promotion on adhoc basis and not the pay fixation order as averred. Pay fixation order (Annexure A10) clearly shows that the pay was fixed under FR-22-1(a) and not under FR-35, as required under the specific condition incorporated in the order of promotion.
III. Further, the applicant whose pay was wrongly fixed under FR-
22-1(a) vide order dated 08.12.2008 (A-10) was erroneously allowed to draw excess salary to which he was not entitled as per order dated 26.08.2005 (A11). Erroneous action and mistake cannot be permitted to be perpetuated, nor can be enforced in law. It does not create a right. The pay of the applicant was fixed erroneously as per FR22, overlooking the condition stipulated in the order of promotion as also the Satyan Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU= arayana CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb734 425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode= 342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2e Vanapa a8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.01 14:14:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 lli 13 letter dated 12.12.2013 (A24), read with letter dated 24.12.2013 (A15), which orders have not been revised/modified till date. The applicant did not fulfil the specified conditions.
The applicant was drawing basis pay @ |Rs.23,900/- on 31.08.2005 while working as Superintending Engineer. The applicant, on being satisfied with the reply filed by the respondents, got the same dismissed and the same were dismissed in default on 01.05.2014. The same have attained finality. The present O.A. which is on the same cause of action, is not maintainable. The representation Annexure A-21 is of no avail. This representation is dated 10.05.2013 while the applicant superannuated on 31.05.2013. This representation was part of O.A. No. 1664 of 2013 and O.A. No. 2577/2013 filed by the applicant before the Principal Bench, stitched as Annexure A-
9. The position remains that FR- 22(i)(a) was not applicable in his case and was erroneously applied. At any rate, the specific provision in the order of promotion dated 26.06.2005 (A-11), which reads as under, is not disputed:-
"3- On promotion their pay will be regulated under the provisions of FR-35."
IV) As per documentation on record, the named officers were allowed fixation as per corporate office, BSNL letter No. 1- 50/2008-PAT (BSNL) dated 5.3.2009, as per option and undertaking exercised by the incumbents while the officers were working in different Telecom Circles i.e. Pune, Tamil Nadu, Shillong etc. In so far as recovery of legally not admissible excess payment is concerned, the same is also legally justified especially when the officer had given an undertaking as stated Satyan Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU= arayana CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb734 425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode= 342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2e Vanapa a8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.01 14:14:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 lli 14 above and as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case. Punjab & Haryana High Court V/s Jagdev Singh Judgment in Rafiq Masih case has no application. Similarly, the judgment in the case Kusheshwar Nath Pandey Vs. State of Bihar has no application. In that case, promotion was cancelled for non-passing of Departmental examination which was actually passed by the concerned employee. Recovery was held to be untenable in the specified circumstances of that case. The pay of the applicant has been correctly fixed, and pensionary benefits allowed accordingly correctly. As per the Principal Bench, as stated above, all due and admissible payments have been received by the applicant. He is not entitled to any relief what-so-ever.
4. The applicant has submitted rejoinder reiterating similar facts as stated in OA.
5. Heard both the counsel for the parties and have gone through the averments made by both the counsels.
6. The counsel for the applicant has based his entire argument on rule FR-22(I) (a) (1) reading as follows:-
"(a)(1)..........................In cases where an adhoc promotion is followed by regular appointment without break, the option is admissible from the date of initial appointment or promotion, to be exercised within one month from the date of such regular appointment.
In cases where an officer has retired as ad hoc before being regularized to that post and later on has been assessed during the process of regularization and found fit by the Competent Authority along with his or her juniors, who are still in service and are eligible to avail of the option facility from a date on which the retired employee, was still in service, the same option facility shall also be extended to the retired employee to be exercised within three months from the date when his or her junior became eligible to avail of option facility and in cases where such retired employee was himself the juniormost, he or she may exercise the option facility within three months from the date when his or her immediate senior became eligible to avail of option facility.
Satyan Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU= arayana CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb734 425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode= 342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2e Vanapa a8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.01 14:14:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 lli 15 *Provided that where a Government servant is, immediately before his promotion or appointment on regular basis to a higher post, drawing pay at the maximum of the level of the lower post, his initial pay in the level of the higher post shall be fixed at the cell equal to the figure so arrived at in the level of the post to which promoted or appointed by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post held by him on regular basis by an amount equal to the last increment in the level of the lower post and if no such cell is available in the level to which he is promoted or appointed, he shall be placed at the next higher cell in that level."
Whereas the counsel for the respondent had based his case in accordance with Rule FR 35(4) reading as follows:-
"............35(4). However, in the cases where the pay of the officer after imposition of the restrictions in the manner indicated above is fixed at less than the value of the first Cell of the Level of the officiating post, in that case, his pay will be fixed in the Level of post held by him before such officiating appointment. If no such Cell equal to the amount so arrived after restriction is available in the Level of post held by him before such officiating appointment, the officer shall be placed at the next higher Cell in that Level even if the limit for restriction mentioned in Para 2 above is breached and he will draw his annual increment(s) in that Level of the lower post till he reaches the minimum of the Level of the officiating post. After one year of reaching/surpassing the minimum of the Level of the officiating post, the officer will become entitled to increment in the level of the officiating post and his pay will be fixed in Cell 2 of the Level of the Pay Matrix of the officiating post as shown in Illustration 3."
7. The perusal of Annexure A/11 dated 26.08.2005 clearly indicate a condition lay out:-
"3. On promotion their pay will be regulated under the provisions of FR-35.
4. The above ad-hoc appointments to the grade of CE(Civil) will not confer on the officers any claims for regularization or seniority etc. in the CE (Civil) grade."
Annexure A/1 dated 28.03.2016, the impugned order with reference to the representation made by the applicant reads as per the following:-
".......The matter of consideration of CDA basic pay of Rs.18700/- which was drawn by the officer on the date of adhoc promotion i.e. 26.08.2005 does not relate to the pay fixation case of this officer because the pay was fixed at Rs.23900/- in the IDA pay scale of Rs.18500-450-23900/-. While stage Rs.18700/- basic pay in the CDA pay scale. The pay of Sh. S.K. Behl was fixed in keeping in view of all the facts and guideline/instructions of pay fixation rules (FR-SR & GID-
4)."
8. The applicant has referred to following judgments are as follows:-
Satyan Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU= arayana CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb734 425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode= 342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2e Vanapa a8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.01 14:14:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 lli 16
i) In the matter of 'Mani Bedi Vs. UT Chandigarh & Ors.' n OA No.60/113/2019, decided on 18.12.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh.
ii) In the matter of 'Ms Rajinder Kaur Vs. Chandigarh Administration & Ors.' in OA No.60/1342/2018, decided on 12.11.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh.
9. On the other hand, the respondents have made reference to Annexure A/11 and the condition as stipulated above.
10. Further in the past, the applicant had approached C.A.T. PB New Delhi and his OA was dismissed in default on 01.05.2014 (Annexure A/22) and he was accorded all the retiral benefits as per the new fixation. This Tribunal would not like to re-open that issue which has already been decided.
However, since the pay was fixed by the office itself without any misrepresentation by the applicant as nothing has been done about the same in the written statement of the respondents.
11. The OA is partly allowed with a direction to the respondents to refund the amount without any directions on the pension and the pensionary benefits already paid to the applicant as per the revised fixation. The respondents are hereby directed to refund the recovered amount along with interest @ GPF till the date of payment, preferably within a period of three months' from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
12. In view of the aforesaid directions, the OA is partly allowed. Pending MAs, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sv/
Satyan Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=
arayana
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb734 425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode= 342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2e Vanapa a8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN= Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.01 14:14:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 lli