BSNL must decide similarly situated employees’ PLI claims through reasoned orders, considering established precedent.

The applicants, formerly serving as Junior Accounts Officers (JAOs) in the Department of Posts and subsequently sent on deputation/deemed deputation to the Department of Telecommunications/BSNL, claimed Productivity Linked Incentive (PLI) for the years 2003–04 and 2004–05. They contended that PLI had been paid to other similarly situated absorbed and directly recruited BSNL employees, but not to them, although they had been working in BSNL during the relevant period

The applicants made several representations between 2005 and 2009 seeking payment of PLI. Subsequently, the Tribunal, in Hari Kishan Sharma v. BSNL, O.A. No. 3618/2014, decided on 8 November 2016, directed BSNL to pay PLI for the relevant years to the applicant therein at the rate paid to other absorbed and directly recruited BSNL employees. BSNL implemented that order, but maintained that payment to other similarly situated unabsorbed employees would be reviewed later, particularly in view of its financial position

Applicant No. 1 also made further representations in 2017 and 2019 and obtained replies under the Right to Information Act stating that payment had been made only to the employee covered by the 2016 Tribunal order and that the claims of other unabsorbed officers were not being considered because of BSNL’s financial condition. The applicants therefore filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking payment of PLI or, alternatively, consideration of their claim after BSNL’s financial revival.

During the hearing, the applicants agreed to pursue the narrower relief of a direction to the respondents to consider their representations in light of the earlier Tribunal judgment and related legal principles. The respondents objected that the challenge was directed against an RTI response, that an alternative appellate remedy under the RTI Act existed, and that the application was barred by delay and laches

Whether the applicants, who claimed to be similarly situated to the employee granted PLI in O.A. No. 3618/2014, were entitled to have their claims considered in accordance with that decision and the principle of equal treatment of similarly situated employees

Whether the Original Application was liable to be rejected on the grounds that the impugned communication was an RTI response, an alternative remedy under the RTI Act was available, or the claims suffered from delay and laches

Whether the Tribunal should directly order payment of PLI or instead direct the respondents to consider and decide the applicants’ claims by reasoned and speaking orders

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It relied on its earlier decision in O.A. No. 3618/2014, which directed BSNL to pay PLI for 2003–04 and 2004–05 at the rate paid to other absorbed and directly recruited BSNL employees.

The Tribunal also applied the principle that similarly situated employees should ordinarily receive the benefit of a judicial determination without being compelled to institute separate proceedings, relying on Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, (1975) 4 SCC 714, K.I. Shephard v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 431, and Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 1943 of 2022, decided on 9 December 2024.

It further considered Ram Bharosey v. State of U.P., Writ-A No. 2699/2025, Allahabad High Court, decided on 7 March 2025, concerning extension of judicially recognised benefits to similarly situated employees.

At the same time, the Tribunal recognised that PLI disbursement depended upon BSNL’s financial position, which was described as variable and dependent on prevailing market conditions.

The Tribunal found that the applicants’ grievance was substantially connected with the relief granted in O.A. No. 3618/2014 and that BSNL had itself implemented that decision in respect of the successful applicant.

Although the earlier order was technically in personam, the Tribunal noted the established principle that an authority should not compel similarly situated employees to undertake separate litigation merely to obtain an identical benefit.

The respondents’ objections concerning the RTI response and alternative appellate remedies did not justify terminating the proceedings because the applicants’ substantive grievance concerned non-payment of PLI, not merely access to information.

However, the Tribunal declined to order immediate payment, observing that the financial position of BSNL was a relevant and changing factor and that the available evidence regarding improved finances did not, by itself, conclusively establish entitlement to immediate disbursement.

It therefore adopted a limited procedural remedy: fresh, detailed representations were to be submitted and decided by reasoned and speaking orders, with due consideration of the earlier Tribunal judgment and the cited legal principles.

The O.A. was disposed of without directly directing payment of PLI.

The applicants were directed to submit fresh representations detailing their claims within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order. The respondents were directed to consider and decide those representations through reasoned and speaking orders within eight weeks, keeping in view the decision in O.A. No. 3618/2014, the judgment in Ram Bharosey, and the Tribunal’s observations regarding similarly situated employees.

There was no order as to costs.