IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 22379 of 2010 Date of Decision: December 16, 2010 Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others …Petitioners Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Anil Rathee, Central Govt. Standing Counsel, for the Petitioners. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and its officers have approached this Court challenging order dated 23.8.2010 (P-3), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), granting benefit to the original applicant-respondent No. 2 to step up his pay with reference to the higher pay of his junior Shri Dinesh Gupta- respondent No. 3 and pay him all the consequential benefit. 2. It has remained undisputed that on regularisation as Junior Telecom Officer (JTO) in Punjab Circle the pay of the original applicant-respondent No. 2 was fixed in the pay scale of ` 6500-200-10500 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and he was further promoted from the post of JTO to Sub Divisional Engineer (SDE) on 20.10.2004 in the IDA pay scale of ` 11875-300-17275. He approached the Tribunal with the grievance that although he was regularly appointed as JTO in 1994 and his pay was fixed as such with effect from 1.1.1996 and thereafter he was regularised as SDE from 2005, yet from the month of October 2005 person junior to him i.e. respondent No. 3, who was recruited in 1992, was drawing C.W.P. No. 22379 of 2010 salary of ` 13,075/- whereas the original applicant-respondent No. 2 despite being senior was drawing only ` 12,775/-, which is less than ` 300/- than that of respondent No. 3. He sought removal of anomaly by stepping up his pay at par with his junior. 3. The claim made by the original applicant-respondent No. 2 has been found meritorious and the Tribunal has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh Grewal v. Punjab State Electricity Board, (2009) 3 SCC 94, wherein it has been held that senior officer in the same cadre cannot be paid less than his junior even if anomaly in the pay of the senior is due to difference of incremental benefits. Accordingly, directions were issued by their Lordships’ of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh Grewal’s case (supra) to step up the pay of such an officer with reference to the higher pay of the junior officer. The operative part of para 7 of the order passed by the Tribunal reads thus:- “7. We have given deep consideration to the issues involved and perused the record placed before us. Admittedly, applicant is senior to Respondent No. 4 and he had no occasion to exercise option to opt for revised pay scales under pay rules of 1997 and because of non-exercise of the options, he has been paid lesser salary than his juniors (Respdt No. 4). The respondents have not provided any evidence to prove whether the circular inviting exercise of option was ever got noted by the applicant. Therefore, applicant’s having not done so, cannot be held as a disqualification to deprive him of his entitlement for all times to come. The Apex Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh (supra) has held that in case of anomaly as is the fact in the instant case, seniors cannot be paid less than their juniors even if anomalies in the seniors’ pay scales is 2 C.W.P. No. 22379 of 2010 due to difference of incremental benefits. Therefore, respondents are directed to step up the pay of the applicant with reference to the higher pay of his junior i.e. Respondent No. 4 and pay him all the consequential benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 4. We have heard Mr. Anil Rathee, learned counsel for the petitioners. He made feeble attempt to distinguish the facts revealed by the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh Grewal’s case (supra) but could not point out any distinguishing feature to take a view different than the one taken by the Tribunal. It is, in fact, conceded position that the petitioners did not provide any opportunity to the original applicant-respondent No. 2 to exercise option and, therefore, it could not be regarded as a disqualification to deprive him of his entitlement for all times to come. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Ram Kumar v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., 2006 (4) SCT 628. Therefore, we do not find any ground warranting admission of the instant petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) December 16, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3