Dismissed¶47

The Chief General Manager v. S. Benjamin

Service law – pay anomaly

Madras HC19 Feb 2026WP(MD)/6734/2015

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: stepping up of pay; pay anomaly/pay aberration; BSNL; Department of Telecom to BSNL transition 01.10.2000; CDA scale vs IDA scale; IV and V Pay Commission; OTBP (one time bound promotion); FR 22(1)(a)(1) identical posts/same cadre condition; Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench, O.A.No.980 of 2011 dated 02.07.2014; certiorari under Article 226; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; W.P.(MD)No.6734 of 2015; compliance deadline twelve weeks with consequential arrears and allowances.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal order confirmed; petitioners to step up pay of the first respondent/applicant on par with his juniors, revise and refix pay with all consequential arrears and allowances within twelve weeks from receipt of copy of the Order; no costs. ¶47

The Chief General Manager Vs S. Benjamin — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether a situation in which juniors draw more pay than a senior in the same cadre constitutes a pay anomaly entitling the senior to stepping up of pay. +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

Since the Department admits the juniors were promoted in the IDA scale with comparatively more emoluments than the applicant's CDA scale, it is certainly pay anomaly; when a junior gets more pay than a senior in the same cadre, it is pay anomaly in service jurisprudence.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

Consistent with FR 22(1)(a)(1) conditions (same cadre, identical posts), the applicant, being senior and promoted in the CDA scale, is entitled to stepping up of pay on par with his juniors.

¶46

Key takeaways

The impugned Tribunal order does not suffer from any perversity or infirmity, and there is no good reason to upset the finding of the Tribunal.ratio¶46
The writ petition is dismissed and the Tribunal's order dated 02.07.2014 stands confirmed; the petitioners are directed to step up the applicant's pay on par with his juniors and revise and refix his pay with all consequential arrears and allowances within twelve weeks; no costs.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law - pay anomaly - stepping up of pay. BSNL employee (appointed Lineman 16.06.1978; time-bound promotion 1994; Telephone Mechanic 04.11.1995) fixed in CDA scale, while his juniors (seniority serial nos. 969 and 973 against his 147) were promoted in IDA scale with higher emoluments following the transfer of the Department of Telecom into BSNL w.e.f. 01.10.2000. The Court holds that a junior drawing more pay than a senior in the same cadre is pay anomaly in service jurisprudence, and that the FR 22(1)(a)(1) conditions (same cadre, identical posts) being met, the senior is entitled to stepping up of pay. The Tribunal's order in O.A.No.980 of 2011 dated 02.07.2014 directing stepping up and pay refixation is found free of perversity or infirmity; the writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashal (certiorari) is dismissed, the Tribunal order stands confirmed, and the petitioners are directed to implement stepping up, revision and refixation with all consequential arrears and allowances within twelve weeks.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.6734 of 2015

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Reserved on : 12.01.2026

¶4

Delivered on : .02.2026

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

¶8

W.P.(MD)No.6734 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015

¶9

1.The Chief General Manager, BSNL, Tamil Nadu Circle,

¶10

16, Greams Road,

¶11

Chennai – 600 006.

¶12

2.The General Manager, BSNL,

¶13

Madurai – 625 002.

¶14

3.The Senior Accounts Officer (Drawal), O/o General Manager, BSNL, No.2, V.P.Rathinasamy Road, Bibikulam,

¶15

Madurai – 625 002.

¶16

: Petitioners

¶17

Vs.

¶18

1.S.Bengamin

¶19

2.The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai. : Respondents

¶20

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order passed by the second respondent made in O.A.No.980 of 2011 dated 02.07.2014 and quash the same.

¶21

1/7

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.6734 of 2015

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govindarajan Dy. Solicitor General of India For Respondent : Mr.S.Ramasamy for R1 R2 is Tribunal ***

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

R.KALAIMATHI, J

¶27

Challenge is made to the Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No.980 of 2011 dated 02.07.2014.

¶28

The applicant, S.Benjamin S/o Sandiago was appointed as Lineman on 16.06.1978. He was granted one time bound promotion on 16.06.1994. He was promoted to the post of Telephone Mechanic on 04.11.1995. In the year 2004, Biennial Cadre Review benefit was granted to him.

¶29

2.1. His juniors, one S.Murugesan (in O.A.No.980 of 2011) and, K.Murugesan (in O.A.No.981 of 2011) are getting more pay than him, even though the said juniors were appointed in the Telecom Department after his appointment and they were promoted to the grade of Telephone Mechanic after the applicant was promoted. As per the Seniority List, his serial number is 147, and the serial numbers of S.Murugesan and K.Murugesan are 969 and

¶30

2/7

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.6734 of 2015

¶33

When the Department of Telecom was transferred into BSNL with effect from 01.10.2000, due to restructuring, they have been drawing more pay than the applicant.

¶34

2.2. His representation to the third respondent to settle the pay anomaly even in the year 2010 was rejected by the impugned order dated 18.04.2011. Juniors are getting higher pay than the applicant as per the policy decision of the Department. Point-to-point fixation in Industrial Dearness Allowance was fixed with effect from 01.10.2000. For that reason, the applicant should not be penalized for no fault of him.

¶35

Per contra, on behalf of the Department, it is stated that the applicant was promoted under OTBP in the year 1994, and he was promoted in the pay scale of Rs.950-1400 of IV Pay Commission, whereas his juniors were promoted in the pay scale of V Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.1996. Due to the implementation of the Industrial Dearness Allowance Pay scale instead of the Central Dearness Allowance Pay, due to the transition of the Department of Telecom into BSNL with effect from 01.10.2000. The applicant was promoted in the CDA scale, whereas the juniors were promoted in the IDA scale comparatively with more emoluments, and the same cannot be considered as pay anomaly or pay aberration. In such circumstances, the stepping up of pay of the applicant on par with his juniors is not possible, and he sought dismissal of his claim.

¶36

3/7

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.(MD)No.6734 of 2015

¶39

The Central Administrative Tribunal, after hearing the arguments advanced by either side, ordered the respondents to step up the pay of the applicant on par with his respective juniors and ordered to revise and refix the pay within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶40

Heard Mr.K.Govindarajan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the writ petitioners and Mr.S.Ramasamy, learned counsel for the first respondent/applicant.

¶41

Pay scale of the applicant was fixed in the CDA scale. The juniors, as stated above, were promoted in the IDA scale, admittedly with more emoluments than the applicant. It is relevant to note that the Department of Telecom transformed into BSNL with effect from 01.10.2000. The Department admits that the afore-stated juniors were promoted in IDA scale which is comparatively with more emoluments, then, it is certainly pay anomaly. When the junior gets more pay than the senior in the same cadre, then it is called pay anomaly in the service jurisprudence. To set right the pay anomaly, stepping up of pay would set right the pay anomaly/pay aberration. FR 22(1) (a)(1) is extracted hereunder:

¶42

4/7

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P.(MD)No.6734 of 2015

¶45

“both the junior and senior officer should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted or appointed should be identical and in the same cadre;”

¶46

In such circumstances, the applicant, who is senior to the above stated persons, who is promoted in the CDA scale, is entitled for stepping up on par with his juniors. We are of the considered view that the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity or infirmity. We also do not find any good reason to upset the finding of the Tribunal.

¶47

Based on the aforestated narrative, this writ petition stands dismissed. Sequel to this, the Order dated 02.07.2014 passed in O.A.No.980 of 2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai, stands confirmed. The petitioners are directed to step up the pay of the first respondent/applicant on par with his juniors and pass orders revising and refixing his pay with all consequential arrears and allowances within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, stands closed.

¶48

skn NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶49

[G.R.S.,J] (R.K.M.,J] .02.2026

¶50

5/7

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

W.P.(MD)No.6734 of 2015

¶53

¶54