Pay anomaly from IDA fixation and FR 22 requires stepping up seniors' pay to match juniors, not barred by limitation as recurring cause.

ORDER

Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member

Applicants are Telecom Mechanics in the BSNL. They had commenced service as casual labourers during 1983-84 in the Department of Telecom. Later, they became Linemen and then were promoted as Telecom Mechanics on various dates prior to the formation of the BSNL from 01.10.2000. They are aggrieved by the non-consideration of their requests for upgrading their pay vis-a-vis 'their junior, K.Sukumaran, who started to draw higher pay by virtue of pay fixation granted on point to point basis on the IDA pay scale and due to the pay revision and non-executive promotion policy and due to the fixation given under FR 22 (1)(a)(i) after fixation of pay in the IDA pay scale'. Thus they seek a direction to the respondents 'to step up the pay of the applicants to that of their junior, K.Sukumaran, who started to draw higher pay by virtue of pay fixation granted on point to point basis on the IDA pay scale and due to the pay revision and non-executive promotion policy and due to the fixation given under FR 22 (1)(a)(i) after fixation of pay in the IDA pay scale and to pay arrears of pay and consequential benefits with effect from the date of stepping up the pay with interest at 12% per annum'.

2. Evidently, on the formation of the BSNL on 01.10.2000, they were initially posted on deemed deputation in the BSNL and later were absorbed effective from 01.10.2000. Subsequently, the Central Dearness Allowance, CDA for short, pay scale was replaced by IDA and thus their pay was replaced by Rs.4720-6970, consequent to such absorption. On making such fixation on point to point basis, the respondents are bound to rectify the anomalies in accordance with the Fundamental Rules. In numerous other cases, such rectification was done, whenever the respondents had refused to grant rectification and upgrade the salary of the senior in accordance with the pay of the junior, the affected persons had approached this Tribunal and the High Court. One instance has been pointed out through Annexure-A2 Writ Petition filed by some of the affected persons, Writ Petition No.30582/2005. That was allowed by the High Court. Though Writ Appeal was filed, Annexure-A3 shows that, that was dismissed by the High Court. Accordingly, that order was implemented and the applicants in Annexure-A2 were granted benefits.

3. Similarly, numerous other affected persons had approached this Tribunal with OAs, which were allowed by this Tribunal, against which OPs(CAT) 1373/2011 etc. were filed before the High Court, by Annexure-A5 judgment dated 08.08.2011, the orders of this Tribunal in the OAs were upheld by the High Court. Consequently, Annexure-A6 order was passed on 04.05.2012 basing on Annexure-A5 order. But, according to the applicants, though they filed representations highlighting their grievances, that were not considered and that made them to approach this Tribunal seeking the declaration and direction as aforementioned.

4. According to the applicants, the respondents' refusal to step up their pay with that of the junior is unjust, illegal and arbitrary and amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Juniors, who drew lesser pay in the lower pay scale were granted higher pay subsequent to the point to point fixation, which is an injustice meted out to them. Therefore, the respondents are bound to step up the pay of the applicants. They have also relied on the decision in Gurcharan Singh Grewal and another v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others [(2009) 3 SCC 94].

5. Ac