UNION OF INDIA vs THE REGISTRAR

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.06.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
W.P.Nos.27038, 27043, 27044, 27049 and 27064 of 2023
AND
W.M.P.Nos.26472, 26478, 26480, 26487, 26507 of 2023,
8823, 8824, 8842, 8855, 8937 of 2024
W.P.No.27038 of 2023
1.
Union of India
Ministry of Communications,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Telecommunications,
Sanchar Bhavan, Asoka Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Bharat Sanchar Bhavan,
Harish Chander Mathur Lane,
Janpath, New Delhi - 110 001.
3. The Chief General Manager,
BSNL Chennai Telephones,
78, Purasawakkam High Road,
Chennai - 600 010.
4.The Deputy General Manager
(HR & Admn.), BSNL Chennai Telephones,
10, Millers Road, Chennai - 600 010.
..Petitioner(s)
-vs-
1.The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai Bench, Chennai.
__________
Page1 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
2. All India BSNL Pensioners’ Welfare
Association,
Chennai Telephone Circle,
Rep. by its Circle Secretary M.Govindarajan,
S/o.Late G.Muniyandi,
Office At 25, Thanigai Street,
Rajaji Nagar, Villivakkam,
Chennai -600 042.
3.G.Ananthan
4.A.Ramachandran
5.Sri.Abubucker Farook (deceased)
6.R.Sivaji Rao (deceased)
7.L.Ekambaram
8.Vijayalakshmi Raman
9.B.Govindarajan
10.S.Vijayakumar
11.R.Prakash
12.Vanaja Sankaranarayanan
13.M.Rajkumar
14.V.J.Bharat Rajan (deceased)
15.R.Balan
16.M.P.Rajendran
17.R.Ramanathan
18.N.Senapathy
19.P.Ethiraj (deceased)
20.Ongole Ruban
21.G.Thirukurugai Perumal
22.Nawasuddin
23.Mohammed Zulfihar Ali
24.Mohammed Mustafa
25.Radiyatulsakira
26.Kathija Begum
(R22 to R26 substituted as per order dated
12.02.2024)
27.R.Radhabai
(R27 substituted as per order dated
12.02.2024
28.Jyothsna
__________
Page2 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
(R28 substituted as per order dated
12.02.2024)
29.E.Vanarani
(R29 substituted as per order dated
12.02.2024)
… Respondents
W.P.No.27064 of 2023
1.Union Of India
Ministry Of Communications,
Rep. By Its Secretary,
Department Of Telecommunications,
Sanchar Bhavan, Asoka Road,
New Delhi- 110 001.
2.The Chairman Cum Managing Director
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Bharat Sanchar Bhavan,
Harish Chander Mathur Lane,
Janpath, New Delhi - 110 001
3.The Chief General Manager
BSNL, Chennai Telephones,
78, Purasawakkam High Road,
Chennai - 600 010.
4.The Deputy General Manager (HR & Admn.)
BSNL Chennai Telephones,
10, Millers Road, Chennai - 600 010
… Petitioners
-vs-
1.The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai Bench, Chennai.
2.All India BSNL Pensioners’ Welfare
Association, Chennai Telephone Circle,
Rep. by its Circle Secretary
M.Govindarajan, S/o. Late G.Muniyandi,
Office At 25, Thanigai Street, Rajaji Nagar,
Villivakkam, Chennai 600 049
__________
Page3 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
3.M.Kannappan
4.S.Krishnamurthy
5.S.Bakthavatchalu
6.C.Gowrinathan
7.N.Kumar
8.B.Venkatesan
9.Rita Sriraj
10.K.N.Srinivasan
11.T.P.Sundararajan
12.G.Nithyanandam
13.R.Mohandoss
14.N.Bhoopathy
15.D.Elumalai
16.M.Tharabai (deceased)
17.R.Mohd. Abdul Khader
18.C.Usha Rani
19.P.Soundaravalli
20.S.G.Sampathkumar
21.G.Kamala
22.R.Bhanumathy
23.K.Seetharamulu (deceased)
24.N.R.Madana Gopal
25.P.Prakasam
26.N.Kamalakshi
27.N.Vijayakumari
28.S.Ranganathan
29.S.T.Naggormeeran
30.S.Yogalingam
31.R.Bhuvaragamurthy
32.V.Sriramachandran
33.R.Manavalan (deceased)
34.G.Padmavathy
35.R.M.Kanchanamala
36.A.Lourdhu Mary Fathima
37.P.Mariammal
38.P.N.Varadarajan
39.Varalakshmi Krishnamurthy
40.Premavathydhansingh
41.C.Loganathan
42.V.K.Chandrasekaran (deceased)
43.D.Barathi Raj
44.R.Muthukumar
45.G.Krishnamurthy
__________
Page4 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
46.K.N.Mohan
47.N.Venkataramanaiah (deceased)
48.B.Nithyanandam
49.K.Lalitha
50.Geethaganesan
51.E.Thirugnanasambandam
52.M.Palaniappan
53.A.G.Shakuntala
54.S.Kothandan
55.P.G.Parameswaran
56.L.Rajagopal
57.R.Sundararajan
58.T.S.Sarachandra Raj
59.S.Mani
60.N.Gopalakrishnan
61.S.Gopalakrishnan
62.K.G.Karunakaran
63.A.Suresh Kumar (deceased)
64.A.Velu
65.Sasikala Krishnamurthy
66.K.Mahalakshmi
67.Hemalathaketharnath
68.M.Adilakshmi
69.P.Durai
70.Praveen Zacharias
71.Parvathy Ramakrishnan
72.S.Santhanam
73.M.Premkumar
74.S.Paramaraj (deceased)
75.L.Sundararajan
76.S.Padmavathy
77.R. Santhanakrishnan
78.A.Radhakrishnan
79.V.Narayanaswamy
80.S.Anantharaman
81.A.Meganathan
82.Shobanamanmathan
83.Mrs.Jothi Baburao
84.Baby D.Akshara Rao
85.Baby D.Ankita Rao
(R83 to R85 substituted as per order dated
12.02.2024)
86.S.Mahalakshmi
__________
Page5 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
(R86 substituted as per order dated
12.02.2024)
87.M.Padmavathy,
(R87 substituted as per order dated
12.02.2024)
88.D.Kasthuri
(R88 substituted as per order dated
12.02.2024)
89.N.Geetha
90.N.Kavihta Shree
91.N.Sowjanya
92.S.Shakunthala
(R92 substituted as per order dated
12.02.2024)
93.P.Jesintha
(R93 substituted as per order dated
12.02.2024)
… Respondents
W.P.No.27043 of 2023
1.Union Of India
Ministry Of Communications,
Rep. By Its Secretary,
Department Of Telecommunications,
Sanchar Bhavan, Asoka Road,
New Delhi- 110 001.
2.The Chairman Cum Managing Director,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Bharat Sanchar Bhavan,
Harish Chander Mathur Lane,
Janpath, New Delhi - 110 001.
3.The Chief General Manager,
Bsnl Chennai Telephones,
78, Purasawakkam High Road, Chennai - 600
010.
4.The Deputy General Manager
(HR & Admn.), BSNL Chennai Telephones,
10, Millers Road, Chennai - 600 010.
… Petitioners
-vs-
__________
Page6 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
1.The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai Bench, Chennai
2.All India BSNL Pensioners Welfare
Association, Chennai Telephone Circle,
Rep. by its Circle Secretary S.Thangaraj,
S/o.Late. Samiyadian Having Office At
No.12-b, Sri Krishna Nagar,
Mannivakkam, Chennai -600 048.
3.Santhasundari Nagarajan
… Respondents
W.P.No.27044 of 2023
1.Union of India
Ministry of Communications,
Rep. by its Secretary, Department Of
Telecommunications, Sanchar Bhavan,
Asoka Road, New Delhi- 110 001.
2.The Chairman Cum Managing Director,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Bharat Sanchar Bhavan,
Harish Chander Mathur Lane,
Janpath, New Delhi - 110 001.
3.The Chief General Manager
BSNL Chennai Telephones,
78, Purasawakkam High Road,
Chennai - 600 010.
4.The Deputy General Manager (HR &
Admn.), BSNL Chennai Telephones,
10, Millers Road, Chennai - 600 010.
… Petitioners
-vs-
1.The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai
Bench, Chennai.
__________
Page7 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
2.All India BSNL Pensioners Welfare
Association, Chennai Telephone Circle,
Rep. by its Circle Secretary S.Thangaraj,
S/o.Late. Samiyadian,
Having Office at No.12-b,
Sri Krishna Nagar, Mannivakkam,
Chennai -600 048.
3.G.Jayakumar
4.P.Srinivasan
5.V.Dhandapani
6.M.Padmanabhan
7.R.S.Vijayalakshmi
..Respondent(s)
W.P.No.27049 of 2023
1.Union of India
Ministry of Communications,
Rep. By Its Secretary,
Department Of Telecommunications,
Sanchar Bhavan, Asoka Road,
New Delhi- 110 001.
2.The Chairman Cum Managing Director,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Bharat Sanchar Bhavan,
Harish Chander Mathur Lane,
Janpath, New Delhi - 110 001.
3.The Chief General Manager,
BSNL Chennai Telephones,
78, Purasawakkam High Road,
Chennai - 600 010.
4.The Deputy General Manager
(HR & Admn.),
BSNL Chennai Telephones,
10, Millers Road, Chennai - 600 010.
...Petitioners
Vs
1.The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai Bench, Chennai
__________
Page8 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
2.All India BSNL Pensioners Welfare
Association, Chennai Telephone Circle,
Rep. by its Circle Secretary S.Thangaraj,
S/o.Late. Samiyadian Having Office At
No.12-b, Sri Krishna Nagar,
Mannivakkam, Chennai -600 048.
3.C.Elangovan
4.M.Jeevarathinam
5.R.Bhuvaneswari
6.Kamala Sivaramakrishnan
7.P.Narasa Rao (deceased)
8.Mohammed Kaleemullah
9.R.Lalitha
10.P.Rajeswari
(R10 substituted as per order dated
12.02.2024)
… Respondent(s)
W.P.No.27038 of 2023
Prayer: Calling for the records of the order dated 16.02.2023 made in
O.A.No.1978 of 2017 on the file of the Hon’ble Central Administrative
Tribunal, Chennai Bench and quash the same.
W.P.No.27064 of 2023
Prayer: Calling for the records of the order dated 16.02.2023 and the
subsequent corrigendum dated 07.03.2023 made in OA No 1979 / 2017
on the file of the Honourable Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai
Bench and quash the same.
W.P.No.27043 of 2023
Prayer: Calling for the records of the order dated 16.02.2023 and the
subsequent corrigendum dated 07.3.2023 made in OA No.429/ 2018 on
the file of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench
and quash the same.
__________
Page9 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
W.P.No.27044 of 2023
Prayer: Calling for the records of the order dated 16.02.2023 made in
OA No.430/2018 on the file of the Hon’ble Central Administrative
Tribunal, Chennai Bench and quash the same.
W.P.No.27049 of 2023
Prayer: Calling for the records of the order dated 16.02.2023 and the
subsequent corrigendum dated 07.03.2023 made in OA. No. 431/2018
on the file of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench
and quash the same.
Case No. For
Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
For Respondent/s
W.P.No.27038 of 2023 Mr.G.Raja Gopalan,
Senior Counsel
For M/s.Sunitha Kumari
for P2 to P4
Mr.J.Vasu, SPC for P1
R1 – Tribunal
Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.P.Ebenezer Paul for
R2 to R4, R8 to R13, R15
to R18, R20, R21 and R22
to R29
W.P.No.27043 of 2023 Mr.G.Raja Gopalan,
Senior Counsel
For M/s.Sunitha Kumari
for P2 to P4
Mr.J.Vasu, SPC for P1
R1 – Tribunal
Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.P.Ebenezer Paul for
R2 & R3
W.P.No.27044 of 2023 Mr.G.Raja Gopalan,
Senior Counsel
For M/s.Sunitha Kumari
for P2 to P4
Mr.J.Vasu, SPC for P1
R1 – Tribunal
Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.P.Ebenezer Paul for
R2 to R7
W.P.No.27049 of 2023 Mr.G.Raja Gopalan,
Senior Counsel
For M/s.Sunitha Kumari
for P2 to P4
Mr.J.Vasu, SPC for P1
R1 – Tribunal
R7 - Died
Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.P.Ebenezer Paul for
R2 to R6, R8 to R10
W.P.No.27064 of 2023 Mr.G.Raja Gopalan,
Senior Counsel
For M/s.Sunitha Kumari
for P2 to P4
Mr.J.Vasu, SPC for P1
R1 – Tribunal
R11 – No Appearance
Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.P.Ebenezer Paul for
R2 to R10, R12 to R15,
R17 to R22, R24 to R32,
__________
Page10 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
R34 to R41, R43 to R46,
R48 to R56, R58 to R62,
R64 to R73, R75 to R82,
R83 to R93
R16, 23, 33, 42, 47, 63 &
74 – Died steps taken
R57 died steps due
C O M M O N O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam,J.)
Under assail is orders of Central Administrative Tribunal
(CAT), Chennai Bench dated 16.02.2023, 16.02.2023 and the
subsequent corrigendum dated 07.03.2023 in O.A.Nos.1978, 1979 of
2017, 429, 430 and 431 of 2018. Union of India, Department of
Telecommunications along BSNL preferred the present Writ Petitions,
challenging CAT orders.
2. Facts of the case:
i) Private respondents are retired Upper Division Clerks
(UDCs) of Chennai Telephones and drawing pension under Rule 37(a)
of CCS Pension Rules, 1972. Private Respondents were initially
appointed as Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) in Telecommunication
Department between October, 1976 and 1982. All of them passed
typewriting test conducted by the Department and after completion of 5
years, they appeared for the merit rating test conducted by the
__________
Page11 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
Department of Posts and Telecommunication for the post of UDC and
passing the test (merit), they were promoted as UDCs and were
substantially appointed in the UDC cadre against the sanctioned post
th
prior to 09.09.1992. Their pay scale was fixed in the year 1986 under 4
Central Pay Commission recommendations. Accordingly, their pay was
fixed at Rs.950-20-1150-25-1500, UDS’s Rs.1200-3-1560-40-2040.
ii) On 09.09.1992, Union of India, Department of
Telecommunications issued orders, converting the clerical staff in the
administrative office from LDC/UDC pattern to Telephone Office
Assistant (TOA) by accepting the long pending demand from the Staff
Union. Due to the electronic exchanges and scrapping of the local
exchanges a large number of telephone operators became surplus and
the need of clerical staff has been increased. Therefore, the department
utilised the surplus telephone operators in TOA cadre who have the
same scale of pay. The LDCS and UDCS were given option either to
remain in LDC / UDC cadre or to switch over to the new cadre of TOA
within a period of three months. These applicants were originally
employed in the erstwhile department of Telecommunications however
subsequently the said department was corporated as BSNL under
Company Act 1956 in the year 2000 and services of private respondents
were transferred to BSNL. Accordingly the applicants have become the
__________
Page12 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
employees of the BSNL after creation of the company. In the year 1983,
the Department of Telecommunications introduced a Scheme, viz., No.1,
those persons who have served in the same cadre for 16 years be given
One Time Bound Promotion (OTBP) and 2. those persons who have
served for 26 years to be given Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) promotion
taking into account their length of service. In the above mentioned
scheme, the person who have neither qualified nor passed in the
departmental test for UDC were promoted as Group 2 & 3 in the
restructured cadre on the basis of their length of service without
considering the employees who have completed successfully the
departmental test for the post of UDC.
iii) As private respondents have not completed 16 years of
combined service as LDC & UDC on 09.09.1992, the date of introduction
of TOA staff pattern they were placed in TOA Grade I scale of pay
Rs.975-1660, shortage of pay drawn earlier protected under personal
pay to be adjusted towards further increment and on completion of 16
years they were placed at Rs.1400-2300 pay scale under FR-22C.
Private Respondents have opted for restructured cadre and joined as
Sr.TOA after fulfilling the procedures prescribed in the Recruitment
Rules.
__________
Page13 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
iv) From 01-01-1996, 5th CPC was introduced to all Central
Government Offices. Accordingly the erstwhile pay of Rs.1400-2300 was
revised at Rs.4500-125-7000 as per the fitment formula. Private
Respondents entered into the restructured cadre appointed in the OTBP
of pre-restructured cadre were placed in the scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000
and that of BCR officials in the scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000 with effect
from 01-12-1998 or from the date they were brought into re-structured
cadre whichever was later. A representation was submitted on
rd
10.03.2017 and again on 15-04-2017 to the 3 respondent therein and
requested to extend the implementation of the pay scale from
10.09.1992 onwards, to its members.
v) The Chennai Telephones vide their letter dated
16.05.2017 justified the claim of the private respondents (as category II)
nd
and sought for clarification from the 2 respondent therein for extending
higher pay scale of Rs.1600-2660 from 10.09.1992 thereon. The Deputy
General Manager / HR, BSNL, vide order No.AST/Sr.TOA(G)/Not
applied for court case / 2014 dated 31-08-2017, stated that, "the
judgment / order dated 30-09-2010 of CAT, Madras Bench cannot be
implemented in respect of the serving / retired officials who are similarly
placed but have not approached the court" and further directed to inform
the decision to persons, who made representation. The said order was
__________
Page14 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
nd
passed relying on a letter received from the 2 respondent dated
15.06.2017. The copy of the said letter was not served on to the
respondents. The Association of Private Respondents complied with the
instructions of Chennai Telephones letter dated 31.08.2017 and
communicated the decision to the members of the Association vide its
letter dated 07/08-09-2017 and also convened a meeting for this
th
purpose on 16-09-2017. The compliance was also informed to the 4
respondent therein.
vi) The action of the petitioners herein in not extending the
benefit arising out of the quashing of the orders passed dated
30.11.2004, 23.12.2004 and 04.01.2005, merely on the ground that,
private respondents have not filed court case earlier is an erroneous
th
reason. The 4 respondent therein admitted the fact vide Letter dated
31.08.2016 that the claim of private respondents are similar and they are
also entitled to get benefits in terms of the order dated 10-01-2017
th
issued by the 4 respondent theerein. The Private Respondents were
advised to state that if similarly placed persons are granted relief, each
one need not go to the court and get orders and the Department is
bound to extend the benefits, if the claim may be similar to uphold the
right of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of
India. After the said order dated 10.01.2017, extending the benefits of
__________
Page15 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
the respondents have approached the respondents 2 and 3 therein,
claiming their rights and the same having been erroneously rejected only
on 31.08.2017. Thus there is no delay in filing the original application
before this Hon'ble Tribunal. Private Respondents raised the grievance
that the condition, which is stipulated in the said letter dated 30.11.2004
nd
issued by the 2 respondent therein and further letters dated 23.12.2004
th
and 04.01.2005 issued by the 4 respondent are contrary to the orders
of the Hon'ble Supreme court dated 09.10.2002 passed in Leelamma
Jacob's case which necessitated 26 years of qualifying service for Grade
3 BCR Grade to persons who pass departmental test is erroneous as
well as the condition stipulated in the orders dated 30.11.2004,
23.12.2004 and 04.01.2005 was already quashed by this Tribunal in TA
117/2010 and other connected OA on 30.09.2010 and the said order has
been upheld by the Hon'ble High court of Madras in W.P No.17214/2011
with connected WP by their order dated 10.03.2015 and
same has attained finality after the SLP filed by the department has
been dismissed by Supreme court on 09.05.2016. Also review filed by
the department has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme court on
27.10.2016 and the order passed by this Tribunal dated 30.09.2010
attained finality.
__________
Page16 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
vii) Respondent therein has been directed to implement the
order dated 31.10.2016 and accordingly on 10.01.2017, the respondents
therein had implemented the order confining only to 139 Officials,
through private respondents were also in the said list, when the earlier
order dated 30.11.2004 and 23.12.2004 issued by the respondents
therein, which was quashed in its entirety. However the same benefit
has not been extended to the private respondents herein, who are left
out. Therefore they submitted their representations and the same has
been turned down on the ground that they are not party to the
proceedings and not challenged the same. The same is in violation of
Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India as the Hon'ble Supreme court
has held in its decision reported in 1985(2) SCC 648 held that similarly
situated persons who could not afford to rush to the court would not be
left out. It is further held that those who could not come to the court need
not be at comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in here if they
are otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled to similar treatment if
not by anyone else at the hands of the court. Private Respondents also
relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the decision
reported in 2006 (2) SCC 747 in para 29, it is held that "service
jurisprudence evolved by this court from time to time postulates that all
persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one
__________
Page17 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
person has approached the Hon'ble Court that would not mean that
person similarly situated should be treated differently."
viii) In view of the rejection order, private respondents in the
present Writ Petitions filed Original Applications before CAT. Tribunal
allowed applications by directing the respondents therein to extend all
benefits in TOA. Private Respondents herein are retired servants, out of
whom, 98 are pensioners and 13 are family pensioners.
3. Contentions of the Writ Petitioners
3.1. Mr.G.Raja Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of BSNL would mainly contend that Original Applications filed
by private respondents before CAT is directly hit by Section 21 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It was filed beyond the period of
limitation and therefore, Tribunal ought not to have entertained
applications. Private respondents had not approached the Court within
time limit and they are fence sitters and waited till such judicial
proceedings are completed upto Supreme Court and thereafter,
submitted representations to Department on securing rejection order
filed applications before CAT. Thus, private respondents are not entitled
for any relief.
__________
Page18 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
3.2. Learned Senior Counsel mainly relied upon judicial
proceedings, which concluded in the year 2003 before Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India. The second round of litigations were taken by few other
employees that came to an end in the year 2016. Thereafter,
representations were submitted by private respondents herein, which
were rejected by BSNL. Therefore, claim set out at this length of time
ought not to have been entertained by CAT. In the event of
implementation of order of CAT, there will be huge financial burden to
BSNL and thus, present writ petitions are to be considered.
3.3. In support of the contention, learned Senior Counsel
1
relied on two judgments, namely, State of Uttar Pradesh and Others ,
wherein Apex Court held as follows:
“22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of
the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as
the respondents, can be summed up as under:
22.1. Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees
is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons
need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so
would amount to discrimination and would be violative of  Article
14  of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied
in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence
evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly
situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the
normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated
persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be
treated differently.
1
(2015) 1 SCC 347
__________
Page19 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well recognized
exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as
acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful
action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up
after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts
who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their
efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the
judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be
extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and
laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid
ground to dismiss their claim.”
3.4. Relying on the case of Arvind Kumar (supra), Supreme
Court recently dismissed SLP in the case of Damor Nanabhai
2
Manabhai and Others vs. The State of Gujarat and Others .
4. Contentions of the Private Respondents:
4.1. Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of private respondents would oppose, by stating that pension
is a continuing cause of action. Admittedly, benefit of revised pay was
granted to one set of employees and they are receiving revised pension
based on the judgment of Supreme Court as well as by CAT, which was
confirmed by High Court. Private respondents herein are also similarly
placed employees, which was not disputed by BSNL. When juniors to
private respondents are receiving more pension than that of private
respondents, they are entitled to seek equal promotion, which is their
2
2026 LiveLaw (SC) 104
__________
Page20 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
right. Thus, CAT allowed the claim. However, Tribunal restricted the
monetary benefits from the date of filing of Original Applications before
Tribunal and therefore, the alleged financial burden as raised by
petitioners herein is incorrect. He would rely on the judgment in the case
3
of M.R.Gupta vs. Union of India and others , wherein Paragraph No.6
reads as under:
“6. The Tribunal misdirected itself when it treated the
appellant's claim as 'one time action' meaning thereby that it was
not a continuing wrong based on a recurring cause of action. The
claim to be paid the correct salary computed on the basis of
proper pay fixation, is a right which subsists during the entire
tenure of service and can be exercised at the time of each
payment of the salary when the employee is entitled to salary
computed correctly in accordance with the rules. This right of a
Government servant to be paid the correct salary throughout his
tenure according to computation made in accordance with rules,
is akin to the right of redemption which is an incident of a
subsisting mortgage and subsists so long as the mortgage itself
subsists, unless the equity of redemption is extinguished. It is
settled that the right of redemption is of this kind.
4.2.Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel, learned Senior Counsel would
further rely on the Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in the
4
case of K.C.Sharma and others vs. Union of India and others ,
wherein Supreme Court observed as follows:
“4.The validity of the retrospective amendments introduced
by the impugned notifications dated December 5, 1988 had been
considered by the Full Bench of the Tribunal in its judgment dated
December 16, 1993 in O.A.No. 395-403 of 1993 and connected
matters and the said notifications in so far as they gave
retrospective effect to the amendments were held to be invalid as
being violative a  Articles 14  and 1 6  of the Constitution. Since the
appellants were adversely affected by the impugned
3
(1995) 5 SCC 628
4
(1997) 6 SCC 721
__________
Page21 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
amendments, they sought the benefit of the Full Bench of the
Tribunal by filing representations before the Railway
Administration. Since they failed to obtain redress, they filed the
application (O.A. NO. 774 of 1994) seeking relief before the
Tribunal in April 1994. The said application of the appellants was
dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment on the view
that the application was barred by limitation. The Tribunal refused
to condone the delay in the filing of the said applications.
5. The correctness of the decision of the Full Bench of the
Tribunal has been affirmed by this Court in Chairman, Railway
Board & Ors. V. C.R. Rangadhamaiah & Ors., Civil Appeals Nos.
4174-4182 of 1995 and connected matters decided today.
6. Having regarding to the facts and circumstances of the
case, we are of the view that this was a fit case in which the
Tribunal should have condoned the delay in the filing of the
application and the appellants should have been given relief in
the same terms as was granted by the Full Bench of the Tribunal.
The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the
Tribunal is set aside, the delay in filing of O.A. No. 774 of 199 is
condoned and the said application is allowed. The appellants
would be entitled to the same relief in matter of pension as has
been granted by the Full Bench of the Tribunal in its judgment
dated December 16, 1993 in O.A. Nos. 395-403 of 1993 and
connected matters.”
Discussions:
5. This Court has considered rival submissions made
between parties to the lis .
6. Facts stated in the aforementioned Paragraphs are not
seriously disputed between parties. Private respondents are pensioners
and family pensioners. The issue relating to entitlement of employees for
revised pay was decided by Supreme Court of India in the case of
5
Union of India and others vs. Leelamma Jacob and others . It is not
in dispute that several other employees similarly placed like Leelamma
5
CDJ 2002 SC 1203
__________
Page22 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
Jacob are also eligible for revision of pay. Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India, while dismissing the SLP filed by Union of India made an
observation as follows:
“6. Incidentally clarifications have been issued from time to
time by appellants in 1992 and In 1994 by which it appears to us
that the appellants have compounded the confusion. The
clarifications purport to state that the seniority of those who were
in Grade 11 by reason of their merit would be maintained In
Grade II although they would not be entitled to the scales d that
the promotion of such officials, namely, merit-based Grade 11
employees pay which their juniors were getting in Grade III. It has
also been "clarified to Grade IV, that is, in the pay scale of Rs.
3200 would be governed by their remained in Grade II they would
not be in a position to be considered for seniority quite
overlooking the fact that if the contesting respondents the
contesting respondents for promotion on the basis of the seniority
in promotion to Grade IV at all. The "clarification" cannot take
away the rights of Grade 11 as obtained in 1983. Nor can they be
denied any benefit to which any of their juniors may be entitled by
virtue of either of the OTBP Scheme or the BCR Scheme.
18. For the aforesaid reasons, we uphold the decision of
the Central Administrative Tribunal (Bangalore Bench) as well as
the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai
impugned before us in these appeals and dismiss the appeals
without any order as to costs.”
7. In view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of
Leelamma Jacob , another set of employees, namely, Mythily and
Others approached CAT and their claim was also allowed by CAT.
Union of India again filed a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.17214 of
2012, etc before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court passed an
order dated 18.03.2015. Relevant portion of the order reads as under:
“32. In this case, the respondents are neither seeking
upgradation nor seeking promotion. The respondents sought only
__________
Page23 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
to grant them higher fixation on the basis of their seniority over
and above the juniors and on the basis of the decision of the
Supreme Court. This benefit was granted by the Department itself
by the proceedings dated 24.2.2004. What was granted in
February 2004 was sought to be withdrawn within a couple of
months by the proceedings dated 10.8.2004 and 30.11.2004,
even without any notice. Therefore, apart from the merits of the
case, the withdrawal of the benefit, refixation of pay and recovery
of the arrears, resulting in civil consequences for the contesting
respondents have been done without even following the
principles of natural justice. Hence, we find no illegality in the
order of the Tribunal warranting interference.”
8. The said judgment of Division Bench of this Court was
taken by way of an SLP by Union of India and Hon’ble Supreme Court
dismissed SLP on 09.05.2016. Thereafter, private respondents
submitted representations, seeking revision of pay on par with Mythily
and others. The case of Mythily and others was elaborately considered
by the Division Bench of Madras and their claim was allowed on par with
Leelamma Jacob and confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Subsequent representations of private respondents, since rejected, they
filed Original Applications and CAT, by following the judgment in the
case of Leelamma Jacob and others granted the relief.
9. The question arises whether limitation is to be held against
private respondents, who are all pensioners / family pensioners. No
doubt, Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
contemplates limitations of one year from the date of passing of the
__________
Page24 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
order by competent authority. No doubt, Original Applications were filed
by private respondents not only challenging the rejection order of the
2017, but along with the orders dated 23.12.2004 and 04.01.2025 issued
by BSNL. In fact, those proceedings were quashed in respect of
Leelamma Jacob and others and Mythily and others. When these two
proceedings were already quashed by Tribunal, confirmed by Division
Bench of Madras High Court and by Supreme Court of India, challenging
of quashed proceedings by similarly placed persons is only to secure the
similar relief.
10. Pension is a continuing cause of action. In the present
case, admittedly, juniors to private respondents herein are receiving
more pension than that of similarly placed pensioners. Parity in pension
continues for longer time. Even considering the fact that there is a delay
in approaching the Court by private respondents, the fact to be
considered is that they continue to receive lesser pension than that of
the similarly placed pensioners. This fact is not disputed. So long as
private respondents continue to receive lesser pension, they are entitled
to claim stepping up of their pension on par with similarly placed
pensioners, whose pension was revised based on the judgment of this
Court, which was confirmed by High Court and Supreme Court.
__________
Page25 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
11. Regarding continuing cause of action in the matter of
pension and family pension, Courts are expected to adopt pragmatic
approach, since pensioners being homogenous clause are entitled to
receive equal pension on par with their counter part pensioners.
12. Three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in the case of Chairman / Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Power
6
Corporation Limited and others vs. Ram Gopal
“13. We may hasten to add that these principles may
not, however, apply to judgments which are delivered inrem.
The State and its instrumentalities are expected In such
category of cases to themselves extend the benefit of a judicial
pronouncement to all similarly placed employees without
forcing each person to individually knock the doors of courts.
This distinction between operation of delay and laches to
judgments delivered in-rem and in personam, is lucidly
captured in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar
Srivastava4 , laying down that:
“2.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set
of employees is given relief by the court, all other
identically situated persons need to be treated alike by
extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to
discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied
in service matters more emphatically as the service
jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time
postulates that all similarly situated persons should be
treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be
that merely because other similarly situated persons did
not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be
treated differently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well-
recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays
as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not
6
(2021) 13 SCC 225
__________
Page26 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
challenge the wrongful action in their cases and
acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay
only because of the reason that their counterparts who
had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in
their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the
benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly
situated persons be extended to them. They would be
treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or
the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss
their claim.
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in
those cases where the judgment pronounced by the
court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit
to all similarly situated persons, whether they
approached the court or not. With such a
pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the
authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all
similarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur
when the subject-matter of the decision touches upon
the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the
like (see K.C. Sharma v. Union of India [K.C. Sharma  v.
Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 721 : 1998 SCC (L&S)
226]). On the other hand, if the judgment of the court
was in personam holding that benefit of  the said
judgment  shall accrue to the parties before the court
and such an intention is stated expressly in the
judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor
and language of the judgment, those who want to get
the benefit of  the said judgment  extended to them shall
have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from
either laches and delays or acquiescence.” (Emphasis
applied).
13. In the present case, an Administrative decision was taken
by BSNL in the year 2004 and 2005 and such decision came to be
challenged and decision was set aside by Tribunal and confirmed by
High Court and Supreme Court. Another set of employees impugned,
i.e., Mythily and others also approached Court and again proceedings
were quashed. Under these circumstances, it would be unnecessary to
__________
Page27 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
drive all similarly placed pensioners and family pensioners to approach
Court and it would result in unnecessary hardship. In such
circumstances, BSNL is expected to implement the benefit in respect of
all the similarly placed pensioners and family pensioners instead of
depriving them or to drive them to Court for filing petitions. This action
would have been initiated by BSNL soon after proceedings of the year
2004 and 2005 were quashed by CAT, confirmed by High Court and
Supreme Court in the year 2016.
14. Pension is a right and not a bounty. It is the deferred
portion of wages earned by an employee. Therefore, there cannot be
any discrimination amongst homogenous class of pensioners. No doubt,
pensioners can be classified on various factors. Once a set of
pensioners belongs to a same category and identically placed, then
there cannot be any discrimination in the matter of grant of pension and
pensionary benefits. In the present case, it is not in dispute that case of
private respondents are factually similar to that of Mythily and others.
That being the factum, private respondents are entitled for the benefit on
par with Mythily and others for whom the benefit of revised pension was
granted. CAT granted the relief of revision of pension by prospectively
granting the actual monetary benefits prior to three years of filing of
Original Applications. This Court is of the view that grant of monetary
__________
Page28 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
benefits prior to three years of filing of Original Applications has no
relevance nor has any nexus, since the case of Mythily was filed in the
year 2005, which cannot be compared with the case of private
respondents, who filed Original Applications in the year 2017. In view of
the said factual position, we are inclined to uphold the order of CAT in all
respects, except the effecting date of monetary benefits, which shall be
granted to private respondents herein from the date of filing of the
Original Applications before CAT. The said exercise is directed to be
completed by petitioners herein within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above modification, the present Writ Petitions stand
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
(S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.)
29.06.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
AR
__________
Page29 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )

2026:MHC:2561
W.P.Nos.27038 of 2023, etc., batch
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
N.SENTHILKUMAR,J.
AR
To:
1. The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai Bench, Chennai.
2. M.Govindarajan
S/o.Late G.Muniyandi,
Circle Secretary
All India BSNL Pensioners’ Welfare Association,
Chennai Telephone Circle,
No.25, Thanigai Street, Rajaji Nagar,
Villivakkam, Chennai -600 042.
W.P.Nos.27038, 27043, 27044, 27049 and 27064 of 2023
29.06.2026
__________
Page30 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 03:31:00 pm )