IMPORTANT POINT
The fixation of payscale should be left to the wisdom of the employer, and the court should exercise restraint while dealing with such matters.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 11.03.2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (the learned Tribunal) in Original Application (O.A.) No. 793/2019. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the OA preferred by the petitioners/applicants and has consequently rejected their prayer seeking directions to the respondent to upgrade their pension by revising the pay scale corresponding to scale of Rs. 25,000-650-30,200 (known as E-9A) w.e.f., 01.01.2007.

2. The petitioners were Group A officers working with the Ministry of Telecom and Communication (DOT), who superannuated on different dates between 2001-2004. Based on a policy decision, the petitioners, were in 2005, granted an option to be absorbed in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), an autonomous organization w.e.f 01.10.2000. All the petitioners, having submitted their option for being absorbed in BSNL w.e.f 01.10.2000, were treated as employees of BSNL and were therefore governed by the pay scales as applicable in BSNL for the purpose of receiving their pensionary benefits. It is the petitioner's case that based on the recommendation of the Inter Ministerial Group approved by the Cabinet, they were placed in the E-9A pay scale, i.e., Rs.25,000-650-30,200/- from the date of their absorption in BSNL

3. Taking into account that the pay scales of the BSNL employees was required to be revised w.e.f, 01.01.2007, the 2nd Pay Revision Committee (PRC), made recommendations suggesting replacement scales for employees placed in E0 to E9 scales. Accepting these recommendations, the respondent no.1/Department of Public Enterprises issued an Office Memorandum (O.M) on 26.11.2008, prescribing the replacement scales for employees in Central Public Sector Enterprises w.e.f., 01.07.2007. However, no separate replacement pay scale was suggested for pay scale E9A and therefore, employees in this pay scale were also granted the same replacement scale of Rs. 62,000/- to 80,000/-. Consequently, the petitioners started to receive pension on the basis of this revised pay scale of Rs. 62,000/- to 80,000/-. Being aggrieved, the petitioners approached the learned Tribunal, which initially granted liberty to the petitioners to make representation to the BSNL and DOT. Upon the said representations being rejected, they again approached the learned Tribunal, which has dismissed their claims under the impugned order.

4. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the decision of the second PRC not to provide for revised pay scale for E-9A was faulty as such a decision could only be taken by Cabinet Committee which had earlier provided the scale of E-9A to Chief General Manager like the petitioners. He contends that this lapse on the part of second PRC not to recommend a specific revised pay scale for E-9A payscale was only on account of the BSNL's failure to make a specific proposal for revised scale E-9A w.e.f., 01.01.2007. His submission, thus, is that since the respondent no.3/BSNL failed to inform the second PRC that any such pay scale E-9A existed in BSNL, the PRC did not make any recommendation in this regard. Consequently, the petitioners continue to suffer by drawing lesser pension on basis of the revised pay scale of E-9.

5. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has also failed to appreciate that payscale E-9 was being paid to the Feeder Cadre post of General Manager as against the payscale of E-9A payable to Chief General Managers, which promotional post, the petitioners were holding. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside and the second PRC be directed to re-examine the matter and provide a suitable revised pay scale corresponding to scale E-9A w.e.f., 01.01.2007.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 supports the impugned order and submits that the petition