Seniors' pay must be stepped up to match juniors, even if anomalous pay started through court order.

The applicants, Telecom Mechanics in BSNL, commenced service as casual laborers in the Department of Telecom in 1983-84, later becoming Linemen and then Telecom Mechanics before BSNL's formation on October 1, 2000

After BSNL's formation, their CDA pay scale was replaced by an IDA pay scale (Rs. 4720-6970) with point-to-point fixation from October 1, 2000

This led to anomalies where their junior, K. Sukumaran, started drawing higher pay due to pay fixation on an IDA pay scale, pay revision, non-executive promotion policy, and fixation under FR 22(1)(a)(i)

The applicants sought to step up their pay to that of K. Sukumaran, who was granted upgraded pay from February 2, 2002, based on an order of this Tribunal in O.A. 1222/2012, to rectify the junior-senior pay anomaly

As of October 1, 2001, all applicants and Sukumaran were drawing a basic pay of Rs. 5,860/-

However, Sukumaran's pay was raised to Rs. 6,020/- on February 2, 2002, while the applicants, who were senior, continued to draw Rs. 5,860/- until October 1, 2002, when their pay also reached Rs. 6,020/-

This created a pay anomaly for approximately ten months (February 2, 2002, to September 30, 2002)

Similar cases of junior-senior pay anomaly had previously been resolved by the High Court and this Tribunal, with orders upheld by the High Court

The respondents, BSNL, opposed the application, arguing delay and that they had not received representations from the applicants

They contended that Sukumaran was not junior to the applicants, or that they were appointed simultaneously, and that the pay difference was due to Sukumaran's increment date being changed to February 2002 based on a court order, while the applicant's (Sathyanarayanan) increment date remained in October

Whether the applicants are entitled to have their pay stepped up to that of their junior, K. Sukumaran, due to a pay anomaly arising from point-to-point fixation on the IDA pay scale and subsequent pay revisions

Whether the application is barred by limitation despite the issue being a continuing wrong concerning the fixation of pay and allowances

Whether K. Sukumaran is correctly identified as a junior to the applicants for the purpose of claiming pay parity

The Tribunal acknowledged the principle that a matter touching the fixation of pay and allowances constitutes a recurring cause of action, thus not being barred by limitation

The Tribunal also referred to O.M. dated November 4, 1993, bearing No. 4/7/92-Estt. (Pay-1), which outlines conditions for stepping up the pay of seniors to that of a junior, specifically requiring (a) both officers to belong to the same cadre and hold identical posts, (b) identical pay scales for lower and higher posts, and (c) the anomaly to be a direct result of FR 22-C, excluding cases where a junior draws higher pay due to advance increments or other accounts not stemming from FR 22-C

The judgment also implicitly applied the principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which prohibit arbitrary and discriminatory treatment in matters of employment by the State

Precedents like *M.R. Gupta v. Union of India* [(1995) 5 SCC 628] and *Union of India v. Tarsem Singh* [(2008) 8 SCC 648] were cited for the continuing wrong doctrine

The Tribunal found that the applicants' claim of a continuing wrong related to pay fixation was valid, rendering the argument of limitation inapplicable

Despite the respondents' contention that Sukumaran was not junior or was appointed simultaneously, Annexure-R1(a) clearly indicated Sukumaran as junior to all four applicants, and there was no evidence to suggest Sukumaran was senior

The core of the anomaly was established by Annexure-R1(a): while all applicants and Sukumaran drew Rs. 5,860/- on October 1, 2001, Sukumaran's pay was raised to Rs. 6,020/- on February 2, 2002, based on a Tribunal order concerning his junior, Sankunny

The applicants, who were senior to Sukumaran, only reached Rs. 6,020/- on October 1, 2002

This discrepancy meant the seniors drew lesser pay for about ten months (February 2, 2002, to September 30, 2002)

The Tribunal explicitly stated that this was a clear case of anomaly, irrespective of the reasons for Sukumaran's pay hike

Even though the O.M. dated November 4, 1993, on stepping up pay lists specific scenarios, the respondents did not successfully argue that any of the exclusionary grounds applied to the applicants' case, thus reinforcing the applicants' entitlement

The fact that the anomaly continued until 2017, albeit with the applicants' pay becoming at par in October each year, did not negate the continuous disparity between February and October annually

Consequently, the Tribunal directed that the pay of the applicants be raised at par with K. Sukumaran for the period from February 2, 2002, until they were granted increments on October 1, 2002

However, acknowledging the long delay in approaching the Tribunal, this re-fixation was ordered to beional, and arrears were restricted to three years prior to the institution of the O.A.

The Original Application was disposed of accordingly, with no costs awarded