Similarly situated Junior Accounts Officers are entitled to equal pay fixation regardless of recruitment source.

The applicants, BSNL employees promoted to Junior Accounts Officer (JAO) through departmental examinations in 2013, sought pay fixation in the revised E-1 scale of ₹16,400–40,500 by granting either one notional increment at 3% of their feeder-grade pay or five advance increments resulting in initial pay of ₹19,020, whichever was higher.

They relied on BSNL’s 20 December 2012 order and pay fixation granted to certain JAOs who had qualified in earlier departmental examinations, as well as the decision in Shashi Kant & Others v. Union of India & Another, O.A. No. 1456/2015.

The respondents maintained that the applicants’ pay was governed by the applicable E-1 scale and ordinary fixation rules, and that the five-increment benefit had been approved for specified direct recruits and earlier recruits only.

The Tribunal considered whether the applicants were similarly situated to the employees in Shashi Kant.

1. Whether the applicants, as departmental promotees to the JAO cadre, were entitled to pay fixation on the same basis as the JAOs who received the benefit of one notional increment or five advance increments under BSNL’s earlier orders.

2. Whether the applicants’ claim could be distinguished from the relief granted in Shashi Kant, including on the basis of their recruitment source or the dates of their promotion.

The Tribunal relied on the principle, adopted in Shashi Kant & Others v. Union of India & Another, O.A. No. 1456/2015 (CAT, Principal Bench, order dated 6 March 2017), and upheld by the Delhi High Court, that employees holding the same post should not be placed on different pay scales merely because they entered the cadre through different sources of appointment, where they are otherwise similarly situated.

The Tribunal also referred to BSNL’s order dated 20 December 2012, providing for fixation in the revised E-1 scale by granting one notional increment or five advance increments, whichever was higher, for the specified JAOs.

FR 22(1)(a)(i) and the relevant DoT pay-scale decisions were addressed in the parties’ submissions, but the Tribunal’s decision turned on the need to assess parity with the employees covered by Shashi Kant.

The Tribunal accepted that Shashi Kant addressed the differential treatment of employees in the same cadre based on their mode of appointment and that the Delhi High Court had upheld that approach.

It therefore considered the applicants’ claim for the same pay-fixation benefit to warrant determination by reference to whether they were similarly situated to the employees in that case.

Rather than conclusively finding that the applicants met that test, the Tribunal directed the respondents to verify comparability and, if they sought to distinguish the applicants, to explain the distinction in a reasoned order after hearing them.

If so, their pay was to be refixed from the date they joined the JAO grade by granting one notional increment at 3% of feeder-grade pay or fixing pay at ₹19,020 through five advance increments, whichever was higher, with consequential benefits.

Any decision to distinguish their cases had to be supported by a reasoned and speaking order, after giving them an opportunity to be heard; the exercise was to be completed within four months of receipt of the order.

No order as to costs was made.