JUDGMENT : Amit Rawal, J. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 16.12.2019 in O.A.No.32 of 2016 preferred by the respondents/ applicants. All the respondents/applicants, (9) in number, had been on the rolls of the department of Post and Telegram as Regular Mazdoors since 1988. In 1999, were promoted as Telecom Mechanic. With effect from 01.10.2000, the department of Telecommunication merged with the BSNL. One, Sri.T.O. Varghese, who was also appointed in 1993 as Regular Mazdoor was promoted on 06.11.2002 to Telecom Mechanic. Though the cadres for promotion to Telecom Mechanic was of Regular Mazdoor even in respect of the applicants and as well as Sri.T.O Varghese, but, owing to certain extra ordinary work being rendered by him, had earned certain increments and his Pay Scale at the time of promotion as Telecom Mechanic was 3200-85-4900. 2. It is pertinent to mention here that all the employees before the merger, were drawing Central Dearness Allowance scale. But, on the coming into force of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), were switched over to Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) Pay Scale and the Pay Scales were fixed from point to point on the basis of the increments earned. In the IDA Pay Scale, Sri.T.O.Varghese was placed in Rs.5225/-, whereas the applicants were in the Pay Scale of Rs.5020/- and Rs.4870/-. In this regard, had submitted representation to step up their pay., as, concededly, Sri.T.O Varghese in the cadre of Telecom Mechanic was much junior to them, as he was promoted on 06.11.2002 vis-a-vis their promotion in 1999. 3. Besides the aforementioned pleadings, reliance was also laid to various judgments rendered in O.A.Nos.902 of 2009, 741 of 2010, 558 of 2010, 743 of 2010, 846 of 2010 and other similar cases, covered under the various judgments dated 01.08.2011, 14.01.2011 and 03.11.2000, which was subsequently upheld by this Court by common order dated 08.08.2011 in O.P(CAT) No.1776 of 2011 and connected cases. In respect of (192) officials, the matter was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.4142/2012/11 dated 20.03.2012 and SLP No.4142/2012/20 dated 30.03.2012. 4. Even before merger, there were little aberrations and an anomalous situation was in existence. In respect of (192) officials, the matter was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.4142/2012/11 dated 20.03.2012 and SLP No.4142/2012/20 dated 30.03.2012. 4. Even before merger, there were little aberrations and an anomalous situation was in existence. In order to overcome such anomaly, the Government of India, Department of Postal Training came out with an Official Memorandum dated 04.11.1993 envisaging three situations: (a) Both the junior and senior officer should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted or appointed should be identical and in the same cadre. (b) The scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which the junior and senior officer are entitled to draw pay should be identical. (c) The anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of FR 22-C. For example, if even in the lower post the junior officer draws from time to time a higher rate of pay than the senior by virtue of grant of advance increments or any other account the above provisions will not be invoked to step up the pay of senior officer. 5. Clause (a) of the aforementioned extracted portion reveals that both the junior and senior officers should belong to the same cadre and the post in which they have been 'promoted' or appointed should be identical and in the same cadre. 6. In the present case, all the applicants were promoted as Telecom Mechanic in 1999 whereas, Sri.T.O.Varghese was promoted on 06.11.2002 and was drawing more pay in the cadre of Telecom Mechanic. 7. However, when the judgments in the aforementioned O.As upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, keeping the question of law open, had attained finality, the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited came out with a Circular dated 04.05.2012, on the subject of the implementation of the judgments referred to above of the Central Administrative Tribunal upheld by the High Court and as well as on the dismissal of the SLP by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and had taken the following decisions: 3. This matter has been re-examined in this office and the following has been decided with the approval of the Comptetent Authority: (i) The aberration in the IDA pay of the senior as on 01.10.2000 with reference to IDA pay of the junior may be rectified by grant of an additional increment to the senior employee who was drawing higher CDA pay in a higher pre- revised CDA pay scale as on 30.09.2000 compared to his junior holding feeder posts included in the same cadre and who was earlier drawing pay at an equivalent or lower stage of pay in a lower pre-revised CDA pay scale. However, DNI after removal of aberration may be granted to the senior after completion of 12 months qualifying period. (ii) Further, on promotion of the Junior in higher IDA scale after 01.10.2000 in which the senior is also placed, if junior starts drawing higher pay again with reference to the same senior, in that case, the pay of the senior may again be stepped up at par with his junior. However, DNI may be granted after completion of 12 months qualifying period to the senior. 8. Petitioners herein/respondents before the Central Administrative Tribunal had been rhetoric on the point that the pay scale of Sri.T. O. Varghese was much higher than the applicants at the time when promoted on 06.11.2002, therefore, was drawing the higher salary even if was promoted later on and had relied upon the instances carved out in the Official Memorandum dated 04.11.1993. The learned Tribunal, noticing all these pleadings, arguments and orders of the Court, negated the submissions made by the petitioners herein and allowed the OA. In this behalf, OP(CAT) has been preferred. 9. Mr.George Kuruvila, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has raised the following submissions: (i) The learned Tribunal failed to notice that the so called junior Sri.T O Varghese, with whom the respondents claim parity in pay, was far senior to the respondents in the entry cadre of Regular Mazdoor (Group D) as he was appointed in 1983 whereas the respondents-applicants were appointed in 1988. It was because of the higher number of increments he earned in the Group D cadre, started drawing more pay than the respondents-applicants with effect from 01.10.2000 on conversion of CDA into IDA Pay Scale. It was because of the higher number of increments he earned in the Group D cadre, started drawing more pay than the respondents-applicants with effect from 01.10.2000 on conversion of CDA into IDA Pay Scale. (ii) Respondents were appointed later than the so called junior Sri.T. O. Varghese in the lower post and they were in receipt of lesser pay than Sri.T. O. Varghese, therefore cannot claim pay parity. (iii) The mandatory conditions which are required to constitute a pay as an anomaly which is to be rectified by stepping up of the pay, is provided under fundamental Rule 22, which is completely absent in the present case, for, the Tribunal failed to note that as on 01.10.2000, the date on which Sri.T.O. Varghese started drawing more pay than the respondents/applicants, both of them were included in different cadres and drawing different Pay Scales and therefore, cannot be compared at all for the purpose of stepping up of the pay. The claim of the respondents was barred by limitation as the so called pay anomaly initially occurred in 2002 whereas the representation was submitted in the year 2015. 10. In support of the contentions, also relied upon two judgments filed along with the affidavit, in terms of the directions of this Court, Annexure R1(a) dated 09.07.2015 in OP(CAT) No.446 of 2012 and Annexure R1(b) judgment dated 14.09.2011 Civil Appeal No.3480 of 2005. 11. On the other hand, Sri.Nirmal V Nair, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, countered the aforementioned arguments and emphatically relied upon the decision taken in Annexure-A9 Circular of 2012, to submit that the judgment of Annexure R1(a), which was basically based on the condition that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the SLP has kept the question of law open, would not be applicable for the reason that the Circular, Annexure-A9 has not been taken into consideration. 12. Moreover, the entire purpose of the judgment was on the eligibility which was omitted to be considered by the Tribunal in the previous judgments. 12. Moreover, the entire purpose of the judgment was on the eligibility which was omitted to be considered by the Tribunal in the previous judgments. The judgments relied upon by the Division Bench of this Court in OP(CAT) No.446 of 2012 would not be applicable for the reason that Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Sujith Baran Mukerjee [1997) 11 SCC 463] was a case where both these junior and senior discharged the same duties under the same responsibility, but, it was held that the junior was granted a special pay for his nature of work whereas, in the instance case, no such claim or any averment or material has been placed on record that Sri.T O Varghese was given some special pay over and above the seniors while discharging the duties, because, before the merger of BSNL, he was drawing much lesser pay, i.e. in a Pay Scale of Rs.2650-4000. 13. As far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is concerned, it was the case of a employee of the High Court of Calcutta, who was given the benefit and on the basis of the recommendation of the Committee constituted, differed with the opinion as the first opinion was against and the second was to grant benefit of the similarly situated persons. The Supreme Court found that the benefits granted to the said person on the basis of which the other persons, the writ petitioners, had claimed the pay, was found to be drawing higher pay only on erroneous reasons, and urged this court for dismissal of the OP(CAT) on the limited cause by pointing out the order dated 04.07.2024 of this Court wherein this Court, after noticing the arguments, had attempted to take a suo motu action under Article 215 of the Constitution of India noticing dichotomous approach in allowing the discrimination in perpetuity challenging the findings by raising the same very plea which was not found in favour in the earlier round of litigation as referred to in the Circular whereby various OAs have been allowed and OP(CAT) dismissed by this Court has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. 15. 14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. 15. Before referring to the Official Memorandum 04.11.1993 and as well as the relevant portion of Annexure-A9 dated 04.05.2012, we deem it appropriate to extract the order dated 04.07.2024 hereunder: “The present OP (CAT) is directed against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 16.12.2019 in OA No.32 of 2016 whereby the respondents/applicants who had joined the department of Telecom as Regular Mazdoor were promoted as Telecom Mechanic in 1998-1990. Three of the employees who had though joined as Regular Mazdoor before the applicants, i.e., in 1983, on having undertaken the tests, were promoted much later, almost three years thereafter, in 2003. 2. With effect from 1.1.2000 the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, (BSNL) was formed and all the employees working under the Department of Telecommunication became the employees of the BSNL. There was an agreement of 2002. It is a matter of record that the Regular Mazdoors like the party respondents had, by that time, secured more increments and were in a different pay scale after formation of the BSNL and continued to draw higher pay scale than the applicants after having been promoted much later. The general rule of the seniority is not only seniority alone but on merit as well. If a person who has cleared the examination and become senior to the applicants and would definitely continue to remain senior. 3. The grievance in short was that they were being paid less pay scale i.e., Rs.5020/- whereas the juniors were getting Rs.5,225/-. It is pertinent to mention here that both the set of employees prior to the formation of the BSNL, were under the pay scale of Central Dearness Allowance (hereinafter referred to as CDA) and later on, were shifted to Industrial Dearness Allowance called IDA which had a substantial difference of the pay scales. In view of such anomaly, the department though had set up anomaly committee but had not brought any succor to the affected parties resulting into institution of O.A. No.1025 of 2010 before the Tribunal. In view of such anomaly, the department though had set up anomaly committee but had not brought any succor to the affected parties resulting into institution of O.A. No.1025 of 2010 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide judgment dated 1.3.2011 allowed the case of the applicants in the following manner: “9.The impugned orders in these O.As to the extent they relate to denial of stepping up of pay to the applicants drawing lesser pay than juniors who got promotion after 01.10.2000, withdrawal of stepping up and consequential recoveries are quashed and set aside. We declare that the applicants are entitled to get stepping up of pay to that of their juniors who started drawing higher pay by virtue of their promotion and pay fixation under F.R.22(1) (a)(1) after the introduction of IDA pay scale and all consequential benefits arising therefrom, including arrears, if any. We further direct the respondents that the amount recovered from the applicants should be refunded. The above directions should be complied with, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the facts and circumstances of these O.As, we do not consider it justified to grant interest on the arrears/refunds to be made to the applicants.” 4. Instant case is of similar nature. Though general directions were issued to the BSNL to form a Committee and sort out the anomalies, the aforementioned judgment was challenged before this Court in OP(CAT) No.2233 of 2011 and this Court upheld the judgment, issuing the following directions: “However, it is our view that in view of the introduction of IDA scales of pay for the employees as a whole and the consequence of pay difference on promotion, it is for the BSNL to work out fresh schemes of fixation of scales of pay under the IDA scheme keeping in mind the anomalies that may occur not only in the present case but also in other cases. In other words, the CAT order confirmed by us does not bar the BSNL to introduce fresh scales of pay under the IDA Scheme. So that anomalies of this nature do not occur. However, the Committee decision cancelled by the Tribunal should not be reintroduced in another form.” 5. We have been informed that there is no compliance with the aforementioned directions. So that anomalies of this nature do not occur. However, the Committee decision cancelled by the Tribunal should not be reintroduced in another form.” 5. We have been informed that there is no compliance with the aforementioned directions. The directions were issued keeping in view the fact that, in future, similar controversies may be curtailed. However the BSNL allowed the illegalities in perpetuity entailing into multifarious litigations by the affected parties whereby similar judgments upholding the judgment of the CAT in directing the BSNL to remove the anomaly were passed (Exts.A5 and A6). The things did not stop here. BSNL continued with the belligerent action in not vindicating the grievance of the affected parties. 6. The aforementioned observations are recorded after having hearing the learned counsel on either side at length. We are of the prima facie view that this predicament of the applicants qua the pay anomaly could have been put to rest, had the BSNL complied with the directions contained in the judgment of this Court dated 8.8.2011. 7. At this stage, we have been informed that the judgment of this Court was challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court which was dismissed and in pursuance to the same, an order dated 4.5.2012, Ext.A9 before the CAT, was passed whereby the BSNL implemented the judgment only against the employees who were before the court. In other words, the BSNL did not consider the fact that the applicants in the present case and similarly situated persons should have also been brought under the coverage of the previous judgment. Having failed to do so, we are of the view that the approach of the BSNL is dichotomous in allowing the discrimination in perpetuity. We thus deem it appropriate to take suo moto action under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for not complying with the directions contained in the judgment of this court in the OP(CAT) matters, as evident in Ext.A9, applicable to all the affected parties. 8. Let show cause notice be issued to the Chairman and Managing Director, BSNL, New Delhi as to why the proceeding should not be taken. Let the affidavit be filed within a period of two weeks.” 16. 8. Let show cause notice be issued to the Chairman and Managing Director, BSNL, New Delhi as to why the proceeding should not be taken. Let the affidavit be filed within a period of two weeks.” 16. An affidavit has been filed on 12.12.2024, wherein it has been stated that the pay anomaly alleged in the present case is not an anomaly of the nature dealt with in Annexure-A8 judgment but stands on a different footing for the reason that the BSNL had not brought the OA applicants or the similarly situated persons under the coverage of the said judgment and granted them the same relief sought for. The alleged pay anomaly could not be considered or resolved in the light of the Annexure-A8 judgment dated 08.08.2011 in O.P(CAT) No.1373 of 2011 and various other judgments and relied upon the instances referred to in the Official Memorandum dated 04.11.1993. An objection was also taken that the suo motu proceedings taken in the contempt is also time barred. 17. It is pertinent to mention here that in pursuance of the order of this Court extracted above, the petitioner had filed an affidavit dated 04.07.2024 which was though permitted to be withdrawn on the premise that in the affidavit, the deponent had in paragraph No.4 stated as under: “Secondly, even if the observations made by the Hon'ble Court in Annexure-A8 judgment is treated as directions (it being not conceded), no action in contempt can be initiated after a long lapse of 13 years since the Contempt of Court Act fixed a period of one year under Section 20 of the said Act. The action in contempt now initiated therefore, is patently barred by the statutory provisions.” 18. In the second affidavit also, the deponent had been audacious raising objection that suo motu proceedings initiated after taking the contempt is time barred in view of the embargo under Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act. The action in contempt now initiated therefore, is patently barred by the statutory provisions.” 18. In the second affidavit also, the deponent had been audacious raising objection that suo motu proceedings initiated after taking the contempt is time barred in view of the embargo under Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act. It is pertinent to mention here that the contempt proceedings in the order extracted above was never taken under the Contempt of Court Act, but under Article 215 of the constitution of India which does not arrest the period of limitation in case it is brought to the notice of the Constitutional court about the dichotomous approach being adopted by the party in giving benefit to similarly situated persons and contesting in different matters, like the one which is before us. 19. On perusal of the three situations in the Circular dated 04.11.1993 supra, the respondents/applicants are squarely covered under the condition No.(a) which is again extracted below:- “(a) Both the junior and senior officer should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted or appointed should be identical and in the same cadre.” 20. Realising that by the time various judgments had already been rendered by Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Courts, resulting into dismissal of the SLP, wisdom made the competent authority to come up with Circular dated 04.05.2012 consisting of the conditions extracted above. 21. Condition No.3(ii) extracted above really protects the interest of the respondents/applicants who want stepping of pay viz a viz the junior in the higher IDA scale after 01.10.2000 where the senior is already placed. Even in the referred case stepping of the pay has been taken care of in case the junior starts drawing higher pay again with reference to the same senior. 22. However, an attempt was made that the word ‘junior’ would relate back to the stage of initial appointment. The aforementioned contention does not merit acceptance for the reason that when on promotion both the persons are brought into the same cadre and the respondents/applicants have already been promoted almost three(3) years back, cannot be termed to be junior to the person who was promoted much later. 23. For the sake of brevity, we reiterate that the respondents-applicants were promoted as Telecom Mechanic in 1999, whereas the junior Sri.T.O.Varghese was promoted on 06.11.2002. 23. For the sake of brevity, we reiterate that the respondents-applicants were promoted as Telecom Mechanic in 1999, whereas the junior Sri.T.O.Varghese was promoted on 06.11.2002. On promotion, both are placed in the same cadre. The seniority of Telecom Officer list, though has been placed on record, but would not make the junior above the respondents except for drawing a higher pay. If at all it was so, Sri.T. O. Varghese would have definitely raised the plea of placing him above the respondents/applicants even though he was drawing a higher pay, but was satisfied owing to the better financial benefit. 24. As far as the question of limitation is concerned detailed reasoning have been recorded in paragraph No.11. “8. In this particular case we note that the respondents do admit that the applicants were promoted as Telecom Mechanic much before the formation of the BSNL on 01.10.2000 even while the aforesaid junior Sri.T.O.Varghese was working as a Regular Mazdoor only. The respondents seem to take a meek and inept contention that at the time of promotion of Sri.T.O.Varghese as TM on 06.11.2002 the applicants were in a different cadre with its own seniority and carried a different scale of pay than the lower post held in BSNL by Sri.T.O.Varghese and that their cadre and their scale of pay were not identical. This, in our view, is a circumlocutory argument to escape the aftermath of the aforementioned judicial decisions. 9. The delay and laches of the applicants in approaching this Tribunal was brought to a sharp focus the respondents. In this regard they referred to U.P.Jal Nigam and Another v. Jaswant Sing and Another [ (2006) 11 SCC 464 ], A.P.Steel Re-Rolling Mill Limited v. State of Kerala and others [ (2007) 2 SCC 725 ], S.S.Balu and Another v. State of Kerala and others [ (2009) 2 SCC 479 ] to buttress their argument that the long delay in approaching the Court would disentitle a party to obtain the discretionary relief even though relief was granted to other similarly situated persons who approached the Court in time. 10. 10. The above legal contentions of the respondents were countered by the applicants by pointing out that in Gurcharan Singh Grewal and Another v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others [ (2009) 3 SCC 94 ], it was held by the apex court that the junior drawing higher pay that that of the senior due to anomaly, ought to be rectified by stepping up. The applicants submitted that Gurcharan Sing Grewal decision was reiterated by the apex court in Union of India and others v. Tarsem Singh [ (2008) 8 SCC 648 ] and that a same view was taken in the earlier decision in M.R.Gupta v. Union of India and others [ (1995) 5 SCC 628 ] also. They relied on State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Yogendra Shrivastava [ (2010) 12 SCC 538 ], wherein the apex court has held: “18. We cannot agree. Where the issue relates to payment or fixation of salary or any allowance, the challenge is not barred by limitation or the doctrine of laches, as the denial of benefit occurs every month when the salary is paid, thereby giving rise to a fresh cause of action, based on continuing wrong. Though the lesser pay may be a consequence of the error that was committed at the time of appointment, the claim for a higher allowance in accordance with the Rules (prospectively from the date of application) cannot be rejected merely because it arises from a wrong fixation made several years prior to the claim for correct payment......” 11. Since the dispute in this case relates to payment of fixation of salary or allowances, we have no hesitation to hold that the claim put forth by the applicants is not barred by any limitation or doctrine of laches. There is no serious dispute for the respondents that there is indeed an anomaly in the scale of pay drawn by the applicants vis-a-vis the higher pay received by their junior Sri.T.O.Varghese. Admittedly, Sri.T.O.Varghese was promoted as TM only on 06.11.2002 much after the formation of BSNL whereas the applicants have been promoted as TMs while they were working under the DOT i.e. even before the formation of BSNL on 01.10.2000. This very situation is certainly to the chagrin of the applicants even though Sri.T.O.Varghese was promoted as TM after the formation of BSNL. This very situation is certainly to the chagrin of the applicants even though Sri.T.O.Varghese was promoted as TM after the formation of BSNL. No doubt, in such cases inter- seniority equity demands rectification of the anomaly by stepping up the pay of the seniors. The aforementioned judgments of the Kerala High Court have attained finality and therefore, respondents have no opinion but to implement the same in the case of the applicants also.” 25. We are in agreement with the finding as it is a recurring cause of action thus would not be barred by the limitation and doctrine akin to delay or laches. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality or perversity with the order of the Tribunal. The OP(CAT) is dismissed. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners/respondents before the Tribunal have adopted a dichotomous approach in dragging the applicants to the litigation, we thus deem it appropriate to impose the cost of litigation to the extent of Rs.10,000/- each to all the respondents. Not only this, the judgment emphatically relied upon by respondent no.1 of this Court cannot be treated to be a judgment in rem for, it had not taken into consideration the Circular dated 04.05.2011, but had gone on a premise of eligibility even if while dismissing the SLP, the Supreme Court had kept the question of law open.