Identically situated pensioners are entitled to parity in pensionary benefits as a continuing cause of action.

The private respondents are retired Upper Division Clerks (UDCs) of Chennai Telephones and BSNL who originally served in the Department of Telecommunications and were substantially appointed as UDCs prior to 1992.

In 1992, the Department introduced the Telephone Office Assistant (TOA) pattern, merging various clerical cadres.

Litigation regarding pay scales and the "One Time Bound Promotion" (OTBP) / "Biennial Cadre Review" (BCR) schemes ensued, culminating in the Supreme Court decisions in Leelamma Jacob (2002) and Mythily (2016), which quashed departmental orders that denied certain higher pay scales.

The respondents submitted representations in 2017 seeking similar benefits, which BSNL rejected on the grounds that they were not parties to the original court cases and their claims were barred by limitation.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) allowed their applications, citing the respondents as similarly situated pensioners; BSNL challenged these orders via Writ Petitions.

1. Whether the original applications were barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, given the respondents were "fence-sitters" who approached the court after significant delay.

2. Whether the disparity in pension between the respondents and their juniors (who benefited from earlier litigation) constitutes a continuing cause of action.

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 regarding limitation.

The principle from State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, which establishes that while similarly situated employees should generally be treated alike under Article 14, "fence-sitters" may be barred by laches/delay unless the judgment is in rem.

The doctrine from M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and K.C. Sharma v. Union of India, establishing that pay fixation and pension claims constitute a "continuing cause of action," where the right to correct computation subsists with each payment.

The Court noted that the departmental orders from 2004 and 2005, which denied the benefits, had already been quashed in their entirety by the Supreme Court in the Leelamma Jacob and Mythily litigations.

While the petitioners argued the respondents were "fence-sitters," the Court held that since the issue pertains to pension—a deferred portion of wages—the disparity between the respondents and their juniors creates a recurring wrong.

The Court distinguished between "one-time actions" and "continuing wrongs," finding that as long as the respondents receive a lesser pension than identically placed counterparts, their claim remains viable.

Forcing retired employees to litigate individually for benefits already judicially settled is an unnecessary hardship, however, to balance equity regarding the delay, the Court determined that back-wages should be restricted.

The Court modified the CAT's order: private respondents are entitled to the revision of pension and pay parity, but actual monetary benefits are restricted to the date of filing the Original Applications before the CAT; petitioners must complete the exercise within three months.