Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs Central Administrative Tribunal

Hemant Gupta, J.—The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short "the Tribunal") on 26.08.2013 whereby an order passed by the petitioners on 28.03.2003 was set aside and the Petitioner was directed to step up the pay of applicant (Respondent No. 2) at the stage of Rs. 10,530/- as on 01.07.2002 at par with Mr. Swaran Singh Bhatia with consequential benefits.

The applicant and respondent No. 4 were both working in the Telecommunication Department of Government of India. While working in the Telecommunication Department, the applicant was promoted to Grade-IV post in the year 1997. However, Mr. Swaran Singh Bhatia was promoted to Grade-IV post on 01.10.2000. Mr. Bhatia was given advantage of two fixations firstly in the IDA (Industrial Dearness Allowance) pay scale corresponding to the CDA(Central Dearness Allowance) pay scale of pre-promoted post and then IDA pay scale of the promoted post corresponding to the CDA pay scale of promoted post. The said benefit was given in terms of Circular dated 07.08.2002 issued by the present petitioners (Annexure R-1). The relevant clause reads as under:

(e) The employees who have been promoted to the higher posts after 01.10.2000 will be fixed in the corresponding IDA Pay scale from the date of promotion under the normal rules relating to the fixation of pay on promotion with reference to their pay in the IDA pay scale of pre-promoted post. However, those, who are promoted to the higher post on 1.10.2000, will first be fixed in the IDA pay scale above and then will be fixed in the IDA Pay Scale of the promoted post corresponding to the CDA Pay Scale of Promoted post, under normal pay-fixation rules on promotion under FR.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the claim of the applicant was declined in the year 2003 but he has approached the Tribunal in the year 2011. Therefore, his original application is beyond the period of limitation prescribed u/s 21 (3) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. It is also argued that the pay fixation is in terms of circular issued, the validity of which is not challenged, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the benefits as has been ordered by the Tribunal.

We do not find any merit in such arguments.

Though, the claim of the applicant for pay fixations at par with his junior Mr. Swaran Singh Bhatia was declined in the year 2003 but the non-payment of legally permissible salary and consequent pension gives rise to recurring cause of action. Therefore, the bar of limitation in terms of Section 21(3) of the Act would not be applicable. Similar question has been examined by this fact in respect of the Armed Forces Personnel, who have been declined disability pension in the case of Ex. Naik Umed Singh Vs. Union of India and others passed in CWP No. 7277 of 2013, decided on 14.05.2014.

In view of the aforesaid judgment wherein the principal of law and precedents have been examined, we find that the original application filed by the applicant cannot be said to be barred by limitation, which is in respect of grant of pensionary benefits.

A perusal of Clause ''e'' as extracted above shows that the date of creation of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited is unrelated to the grant of revised pay scale to the applicant and to respondent No. 4 in the original application. All the employees irrespective of date of creation of BSNL are discharging the similar duties and have to be treated in similar manner in the matter of pay fixation. The classification in respect of pre 01.10.2000 promotees and post 01.10.2000 promotees is artificial and discriminatory. Therefore, the classification in respect of fixation of salary on that basis is not sustainable.

In view thereof, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Tribunal in terms of entitlement of the applicant for the grant of pay in the scale of at the stage of Rs. 10,530/-.

However, the question arises is whether the applicant is entitled to arrears of salary or pension from the date he attained the age of superannuation on 28.02.2003 or for a period of three years prior to invoking jurisdiction of the Tribunal. In Umed Singh''s case (supra) this question has been examined and has been held that in respect of pensionary benefits, the applicant is entitled to the arrears of pension for a period of three years prior to invocation of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. In view thereof, the applicant is entitled to arrears of pension for a period of 3 years prior to invocation of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Such aspect has not been disputed by Mr. Mittal.

In view of the said modification, the writ petition stands dismissed. The petitioners shall calculate the arrears of pension and other consequential benefits, which may ensue to the applicant in terms of his placement in the pay scale in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months.