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 from various services/cadres including the applicant were absorbed. Rest of paragraph 4 of the reply statement reads thus:

“...........It was decided that all issues, which arose due to the above absorption, time bound/post based Executive Promotion for Group "B" level officers etc., be referred to a High Level Committee. A Sub-committee was constituted by the BSNL, which had to recommend on such issues in consultation with the Department of Tel