Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6546

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
K. Haripal, Judicial Member, V. Rama Mathew, Administrative Member
Philip Alexander – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited – Respondent
O.A.No.180/001094/2016

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. P.Chandrasekhar, Ms.Mary Reshma George, Ms.Haritha V.A., Ms. Sandhya R Nair, Ms.Mazna Mansoor
For the Respondents: Mr.V.Santharam

The anomaly of a senior drawing less pay than a junior, without justifiable reason, must be rectified by stepping up the senior's pay, even if the anomaly arises from the employer's own policy.

Headnote:(A) The relevant policy is the Executive Promotion Policy (EPP) of BSNL, notified via O.M. dated 18.01.2007, which provides for time bound financial upgradations that are personal to the executive and precludes comparison on grounds of seniority, class, cadre, community, stream etc. The case also involves the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.

(B) The central legal principle is that the anomaly of a senior employee drawing less pay than a junior, without any justifiable reason, is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of the principles of natural justice and 'equal pay for equal work'. Such anomaly must be rectified by stepping up the pay of the senior to the level of the junior, even if the anomaly arises from the employer's own policy.

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a retired Divisional Engineer, highlighted that his juniors, who were promoted to Divisional Engineer after him, were granted a 2nd time bound upgradation, resulting in them drawing higher pay than him. His representation for rectification of this anomaly was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 22.10.2016. Earlier, similarly situated officers had filed O.A.Nos.109/2011, 110/2011, and 236/2011, which were allowed by this Tribunal (Annexure-A2) and upheld by the High Court (Annexure-A3) and the Supreme Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that the respondents had not denied that the applicant's juniors were drawing higher pay. The reasons given in the rejection order were arbitrary and discriminatory. The Tribunal noted that the issue of such anomaly had been settled by Annexures-A2 and A3, which had become final, and that the respondents were bound to rectify the anomaly by stepping up the applicant's pay to the level of his juniors.

Issues: Whether the denial of 2nd time bound upgradation to the applicant, while granting it to his juniors, resulting in an anomaly where juniors draw higher pay than the senior, is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of the principles of natural justice and 'equal pay for equal work', and whether the respondents are bound to rectify such anomaly.

Ratio Decidendi: Unless there is a justifiable reason, the general principle in service jurisprudence is that a senior getting less pay than a junior is an anomaly that must be rectified by stepping up the pay of the senior. The policy of the respondents that time bound upgradations are 'personal' cannot be used to perpetuate an unjust anomaly. The employer is duty-bound to rectify such anomalies. (Paras 22, 23, 24, 31)

Result: Application allowed. The respondents are directed to rectify the anomaly and raise the pay of the applicant at par with his juniors within 90 days, and pay consequential benefits within the same timeframe.

Table of Content
1. facts leading to the grievance of pay anomaly. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. respondents' justification based on epp policy. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. submissions and identification of actual anomaly. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. legal principle: senior getting less pay than junior is an anomaly. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
5. final direction to rectify anomaly. (Para 31)

O R D E R

Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member

1.Applicant is a former Divisional Engineer in BSNL, who retired from service on 31.05.2011. He has highlighted anomaly of his juniors getting 2^nd time bound upgradation and thereby drawing higher pay than him. His grievance is that though he made representations, that were not considered by the respondents favourably. Earlier, he had moved this Tribunal with O.A.662/2015. By order dated 20.08.2015, the Tribunal disposed of the O.A. at the admission stage itself directing the respondents to consider and dispose of his representation. By Annexure-A5 order dated 22.10.2016 that representation was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, he has approached the Tribunal seeking to quash Annexure-A4 (sic)/Annexure-A5 and set aside the same, to direct the respondents to grant him 2^nd time bound upgradation in the scale of pay in the substantive cadre of Sub Divisional Engineer and grant him benefits to the level of the pay of his juniors.

2. The applicant had started service as Junior Telecom Officer. He was promoted as Sub Divisional Engineer and then got upgradation with effect from 01.10.2004 in the scale of Rs.13000-350-18250 from the scale of Rs.11875-300-17275 as per order dated 11.01.2008. Later, he was promoted as Divisional Engineer on adhoc basis and then on regular basis.

3. According to the applicant, his juniors who had been given adhoc promotion as Divisional Engineers from the post of Sub Divisional Engineers after he was promoted on adhoc basis were given 2^nd upgradation in IDA scale; they were subsequently given scale of pay of Divisional Engineers. Thus, all of them, who joined service much after the applicant who were juniors to him are now drawing pay much higher than that of the applicant. He has specifically stated the case of Smt.Mydhili, who had joined service much after the applicant. Similarly, the cases of M/s.Rajendran Pillai, K.Jayaraman, Sreenivasan, A.Louis Irudayaraj and Dhanapalan, all of whom are juniors to him are drawing higher pay than the applicant, which is clearly an anomaly. Even though the case of one M.R.Subramanyam of Karnataka Circle was referred in the Annexure-A1 representation, that case has not been pursued by the applicant.

4. Highlighting similar anomaly, similarly situated officers had moved this Tribunal with O.A.Nos.109/2011, 110/2011 and 236/2011, which were allowed by Annexure-A2 order. Through Annexure-A3, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the challenge against Annexre-A2. OP(CAT). SLP filed against Annexure-A3 has been dismissed and benefits have been given to the parties to the litigation. Thus, Annexures-A2 and A3 have become final. Annexure-A1 representation given by the applicant was not considered.

5. According to the applicant, reasons stated in Annexure-A5 are highly arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the principles of natural justice. Denial of 2^nd time bound upgradation to the applicant while granting the benefits to juniors is highly arbitrary and illegal. Thus, the O.A. has become necessary.

6. In the reply statement filed by the respondents, it is contended that the O.A. has been filed on experimental basis. None of the Constitutional rights of the applicant has been infringed for filing the O.A. The application is hopelessly barred by limitation. The applicant is trying to mislead the Tribunal by concealing certain material facts, which ought to have been disclosed for the fair adjudication of the case.

7. According to the respondents, after the incorporation of the BSNL, Group-B officers fr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6546

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALK. Haripal, Judicial Member, V. Rama Mathew, Administrative MemberPhilip Alexander – AppellantVersusBharat Sanchar Nigam Limited – RespondentO.A.No.180/001094/2016

The anomaly of a senior drawing less pay than a junior, without justifiable reason, must be rectified by stepping up the senior's pay, even if the anomaly arises from the employer's own policy.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
K. Haripal, Judicial Member, V. Rama Mathew, Administrative Member
Philip Alexander – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited – Respondent
O.A.No.180/001094/2016