Allowed

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. N.D.Gopi

Kerala HC2 Apr 2024OP (CAT)/203/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BSNL challenged a CAT order directing re-examination of pay fixation of two juniors and stepping up of a retired telecom mechanic's pay at parity. The High Court held that parity must be examined on pre-existing parameters and that disparity arose from options exercised by the juniors; the Tribunal's order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Tribunal order dated 18.09.2014 in OA 619/2012 was set aside.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs N.D.Gopi — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

OP(CAT) No.203/2015

¶2

-:1:-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶6

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶8

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1946

¶9

OP (CAT) NO. 203OF 2015

¶10

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.09.2014 IN OP NO.619 OF 2012 OF OA

¶11

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶12

AND ORDER DATED 25/2/2015 IN R.P.NO.180/00040/2014 IN O.A.NO.619/2012 OF CAT, EKM BENCH

¶13

PETITIONER/S:

¶14

1 BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. AGED 52 YEARS

¶15

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, SANCHAR BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.

¶16

2 CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM.

¶17

3 PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER TELECOMMUNICATION, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., ERNAKULAM SSA, ERNAKULAM.

¶18

4 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI. BY ADV SRI.P.J.PHILIP,SC,BSNL(BHARAT SANCHAR N

¶19

OP(CAT) No.203/2015

¶20

-:2:-

¶21

RESPONDENT/S:

¶22

1 N.D.GOPI S/O.LATE DAMODARAN, TELECOM MECHANIC (RETIRED), C/O.SDE, TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-16 RESIDING AT NANGAPILLIL THUNDIYIL HOUSE, THYCOODAM, VYTILLA, KOCHI-19.

¶23

*ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT 2 TO 4 IMPLEADED.

¶24

2 ADDL.R2: LATHIKA V.K., AGED 66 YEARS,W/O.LATE N.D.GOPI, RESIDING AT NANGAPILLIL HUNDIYIL HOUSE,THYCOODAM,VYTTILA P.O.,KOCHI-682019.

¶25

3 ADDL.R3:MEERA G., AGED 36 YEARS,D/O.LATE N.D.GOPI, RESIDING AT NANGAPILLIL HUNDIYIL HOUSE,THYCOODAM,VYTTILA P.O.,KOCHI-682019.

¶26

4 ADDL.R4:MEENU G., AGED 29 YEARS,D/O.LATE N.D.GOPI, RESIDING AT NANGAPILLIL HUNDIYIL HOUSE,THYCOODAM,VYTTILA P.O.,KOCHI-682019.

¶27

*ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDER DATED 17/3/21 IN IA NO,1/2020 IN OP (CAT)
203/2015.
BY ADVS.
P.A.KUMARAN
R.SREERAJ

¶28

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 4/3/2024, THE
COURT ON 2/4/2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

OP(CAT) No.203/2015

¶30

-:3:-

¶31

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.

¶32

O.P.(CAT).No.203 of 2015

¶33

Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2024

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

¶36

This original petition is filed by BSNL. The respondent
Shri N.D.Gopi approached the Central Administrative Tribunal to
fix the pay at par with his two juniors. Tribunal ordered as
follows:

¶37

22. Therefore, after considering the entire facts and circumstances
of the case, we direct the respondents to re-examine the fixation of
pay of the two juniors with whom the applicant has sought parity of pay
in the light of OM dated 17.12.2008 issued by the DoT and circular No.32
of BSNL dated 27.09.2012. Thereafter, if the juniors are still found
to be drawing higher pay than the applicant, then the applicant's pay
shall be stepped up at par with his juniors right from the date when

¶38

OP(CAT) No.203/2015

¶39

-:4:-

¶40

the anomalous situation arose. The entire exercise should be completed
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.

¶41

2. The above order according to us is legally erroneous
and unsustainable. The Tribunal could not have ordered re-
examination of fixation of pay of his juniors who were not before
the Tribunal. Parity of pay will have to be examined based on
pre-existing parameters. It is apparent in this case disparity
exist in the pay due to option exercised by the petitioner. The
plea of the respondent-applicant before the Tribunal was to step
up pay at par with his juniors. There is no dispute to the fact
that disparity was due to option exercised by the juniors. In
such circumstances, the impugned order is set aside.

¶42

The original petition stands allowed.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JUDGE

¶47

ms

¶48

OP(CAT) No.203/2015

¶49

-:5:-

¶50

APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 203/2015

¶51

`PETITION` `ANNEXURE`	`ER ANNEXU` `A12`	`RES` `A TRUE COPY OF` `PERS iii( P ) D` `RESPONDENT`	`THE` `ATED`	`ORDER NO.250-5/2005 -` `30/08/2010 OF THE IST`
`ANNEXURE`	`A1`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `(a) /ssa/11/46` `THE 3RD RESPOND`	`THE` `DATE` `ENT`	`ORDER NO ST/EK-250/04` `D 5/04/2001 ISSUED FOR`
`ANNEXURE`	`A2`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `(a) /ssa/11/46` `THE 3RD RESPOND`	`THE` `DATE` `ENT`	`ORDER NO ST/EK-250/04` `D 5/04/2001 ISSUED FOR`
`ANNEXURE`	`A3`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `THE APPLICANT`	`THE`	`PAY FIXATION MEMO OF`
`ANNEXURE`	`A4`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `2002 DATED 7-08` `RESPONDENT`	`THE` `-200`	`LETTER NO: 1-35/ESTT-` `2 ISSUED FOR THE 1ST`
`ANNEXURE`	`-A5`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `THE APPLICANT I`	`THE` `N ID`	`PAY FIXATION MEMO OF` `A SCALE`
`ANNEXURE`	`A6`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `SRI.V.V. ASHOKA`	`THE` `N IN`	`PAY FIXATION OD` `THE IDA SCALE`
`ANNEXURE`	`A6 (a)`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `GRANT OF GRADE`	`THE` `III`	`PAY FIXATION MEMO OF ON` `BCR`
`ANNEXURE`	`A7`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `11/2674/IV/2001` `ISSUED FOR THE`	`THEO` `-03/` `3RD`	`RDER NO: ADMN` `39 DATED 11/10/2002` `APPLICANT`
`ANNEXURE`	`A8`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `25/02/2005 OF T`	`THE` `HE A`	`PAY FIXATION MEMO DATED` `PPLICANT`
`ANNEXURE`	`A9`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `25/02/2005 OF T`	`THE` `HE A`	`PAY FIXATION MEMO DATED` `PPLICANT`
`ANNEXURE`	`A10`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `20/07/2009 MADE`	`THE` `BY`	`REPRESENTAION DATED` `THE APPLICANT`
`ANNEXURE`	`A11`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `2/08/2011 ALONG` `TRANSLATION`	`THE` `WIT`	`REPRESENTATION DATED` `H THE ENGLISH`
`ANNEXURE`	`A13`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `17/11/2011 IN O` `THE HONBLE TRIB`	`THE` `A 96` `UNAL`	`FINAL ORDER DATED` `8/2010 ON THE FILES OF`
`ANNEXURE`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF TH` `THE PETIONERS H`	`E RE` `EREI`	`PLY STATEMENT FILED BY` `N IN oa 619/2012`
`ANNEXURE`	`R1`	`TRUE COPY OF TH` `1(1)06/PAT DATE`	`E DO` `D 12`	`R CIRCULAR NO 1-` `/09/2006`

¶52

OP(CAT) No.203/2015

¶53

-:6:-

¶54

`ANNEXURE R2`	`BSNL HQ LETTER NO` `DATED 27.09.2012`	`: 1-5/2004/PAT (BSNL)`
`ANNEXURE R2 (a)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `PAT DATED 17/12/2`	`DOT ORDER NO-1-1(1)/06-` `008`
`ANNEXURE R2(b)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `(1)06/2006-PAT DA`	`DOT LETTER NO-1-1` `TED 5-08-2012`
`ANNEXURER R3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `RESPECT OF THE AP`	`DUE DRAWN STATEMENT ON` `PLICANT`
`ANNEXURE R4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `3537008/21 DATED`	`PAY FIXATION MEMO NO EQ-` `25.02.2005`
`ANNEXURE R 5(a)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `V.V.ASOKAN`	`PAY FIXATION MEMO OF`
`ANNEXURE R5 (B)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE`	`OPTION OF V.V.ASOKAN`
`ANNEXURE R6(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `T.X.VACCO`	`PAY FIXATION MEMO OF`
`ANNEXURE R6(B)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `T.X.VACCO`	`PAY FIXATION MEMO OF`
`ANNEXURE A14`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `OA 749/2008`	`ORDER DATED 29/09/2009 IN`
`ANNEXURE A15`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `18/02/2010 IN WPC` `HIGH COURT OF KER`	`JUDGEMENT DATED` `4436/2010 OF THE HONBLE` `ALA`
`ANNEXURE RA1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `18/09/2014 IN OA` `THIS HONBLE TRIBU`	`FINAL ORDER DATED` `619/2012 ON THE FILED OF` `NAL`
`ANNEXURE R A1(a)`	`true copy of the` `dated 18/09/2014` `ernakulam bench`	`order in oa 619/2012` `of the honble tribunal`
`ANNEXURE R A1(b)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `2/2010 TE DATED 2` `EXECUTIVE EMPLOYE`	`NEPP VIDE NO F.NO 12-` `0/08/2010 FOR NON` `ES`
`ANNEXURE R A1 (c)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `ORDER NO 412-24/2` `13/12/2012`	`BSNL CORPORATE OFFICE` `012 PERS.1. DATED`
`ANNEXURE MA1`	`A TRUE COPY OF TH` `619/2012 ON THE F` `TRIBUNAL`	`E FINAL ORDER IN OA` `ILES OF THE HONBLE`
`ANNEXURE MA2`	`A TRUE COPY OF TH` `180/00031/14 IN O` `OF THE HONBLE TRI`	`E ORDER IN RA` `A 619/2012 ON THE FILES` `BUNAL ERNAKULAM`
`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE`	`ORDER DATED 18TH`
	`SEPTEMBER 2014 IN`	`oa 619/2012 of the`

¶55

OP(CAT) No.203/2015

¶56

-:7:-

¶57

	`central ad` `bench`	`ministr`	`ative tribunal, ernakulam`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY` `IN REVIEW` `OA 619/201` `ADMIMINIST` `BENCH`	`OF THE` `APPLICA` `2 OF TH` `RATIVE`	`ORDER DATED 25.02.2015.` `TION NO: 180/0040/2014 IN` `E CENTRAL` `TRIBUNAL , ERNAKULAM`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY` `RESPONDENT` `ERNAKULAM`	`OF THE` `HEREIN` `BENCH`	`OA 619/2012 FILED BY THE` `BEFORE THE CAT,`
`EXHIBIT P4` `EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY` `THE PETITI` `TRUE COPY` `RESPONDENT` `FILED BY T` `619/2012`	`OF THE` `ONERS H` `OF THE` `HEREIN` `HE PETI`	`REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY` `EREIN IN O.A. 619 OF 2012` `REJOINDER FILED BY THE` `TO THE REPLY STATEMENT` `ONERS HEREIN IN OA`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPY` `17/12/2008`	`OF THE`	`ORDER OF THE DOT DATED`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE COPY` `DATED 27/0`	`OF THE` `9/2012`	`CIRCULAR NO 32 OF BSNL`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE COPY` `180/00031/` `RESPONDENT`	`OF THE` `2014 IN`	`REVIEW APPLICATION NO` `OA 619/2012 BY THE`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`TRUE COPY` `NOVEMEBER` `619/2012`	`OF THE` `2014 IN`	`ORDER DATED 14TH` `RA 180/00031/14 IN OA`
`EXHIBIT P10`	`TRUE COPY` `180/00040/` `PETIONERS`	`OF THE` `2014 IN` `HEREIN`	`REVIEW APPLICATION NO` `OA 619/2012 FILED BY THE`
`EXHIBIT P11`	`TRUE COPY` `PETIONERS` `ADMINISTAR`	`OF THE` `IN THE` `ATIVE T`	`LETTER BY COUNSEL FOR` `HONBLE CENTRAL` `RIBUNAL DATED 29/09/2015`
`EXHIBIT P-12`	`TRUE COPY` `619/2012 S` `P1 ORDER`	`OF THE` `EEKING`	`MA NO. OF 2015 IN OA` `IMPLEMENTATION OF EXHIBIT`
`EXHIBIT P13`	`TRUE COPY` `BY THE DEC` `2013.`	`OF NOMI` `EASED P`	`NATION FORM OF GPF GIVEN` `ETITIONER DATED 1-12-`

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. N.D.Gopi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. N.D.Gopi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Somasekhara Kurup (Died) Vs the State of Kerala

Dr.S.Krishna Sarma Vs S.Lakshmana Sarma

Kanthimathy Plantation (P) Ltd. Vs S.Krishna Sarama

Sumathy .T Vs State of Kerala

Ajithakumar v.R, Vs Suresh a

Deepa Krishnan, Vs T.Jayakumar