Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
V V Krishna Sarma vs M/O Information And Broadcasting on 8 January, 2025
1
O.A. No. 427/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 427/2016
Reserved on: 17.12.2024
Pronounced on: 08.01.2025
HON'BLE DR. CHHABILENDRA ROUL, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE SHRI AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER (J)
1. Shri V.V. Krishna Sarma, aged 55 years,
S/o Sri V. Rama Murty,
Administrative Officer,
Song & Drama Division,
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
9th Floor, Soochna Bhawan,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110 003.
2. Smt. Manju Sharma, aged 52 years,
W/o late Shri Sanjay Sharma,
Superintendent,
Song & Drama Division,
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
9th Floor, Soochna Bhawan,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110 003.
...Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary,
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
'A' Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Director,
Song & Drama Division,
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
9th Floor, Soochna Bhawan,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110 003.
...Respondents
For Applicants: Mr. Vinay Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondents: Dr. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan, Senior Central
Government Standing Counsel.
2
O.A. No. 427/2016
ORDER
AS PER AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER JUDICIAL:
ISSUES AT HAND The precise questions that arise for determination in the present Original Application are -
"(i) Whether the Applicants are entitled to Grade Pay Rs.5400/- in PB-II Rs.9300-34,800 to the post of Superintendent and Grade Pay Rs.6600/- in PB-II 9300-
34,800 to the post of Administrative Officer in S&DD on implementation of recommendations of 6th CPC w.e.f. 01.01.2006?
(ii) Whether the Applicants are entitled for stepping up of pay at par with their juniors when the pay anomaly is due to grant of financial upgradations under ACP Scheme?
PRAYER
2. Applicants are retired Administrative Officers of Song & Drama Division, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting have filed the present OA invoking jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following main relief (s) [as extracted from the OA) reads as under:-
"(i) To direct the respondents to remove the anomalies occurred in the Grade Pay of promotional posts of Stenographer Grade-II, Superintendent and Administrative Officer in S&DD with effect from 01.01.2006.
(ii) To direct the respondents to grant the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- to the post of Superintendent and Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- to the post of AO in S&DD with effect from 01.01.2006 and step up the Basic Pay/Grade Pay of Applicants at par with their juniors.
(iii) To direct the respondents to pay the arrears occurred to the Applicants accordingly within a period of one month.
(iv) To grant costs of this OA to the Applicants herein, and
(v) To pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."
FACTUAL MATRIX [
3. Briefly stated facts as adumbrated by the applicants in the present OA that applicant no.1 & 2 were initially appointed as 3 O.A. No. 427/2016 Stenographer Grade-III (Group 'C'-Non-Gazetted) in Song and Drama Division, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting w.e.f. 19.06.1982 and 03.02.1984. They were promoted as Stenographer Grade-II (Group 'C'-Non-Gazetted) w.e.f. 11.07.1997 and 03.09.1998. Further promoted as Superintendent (Group 'B'- Gazetted) w.e.f. 01.05.2006 and 01.06.2007. Thereafter applicants further promoted as Administrative Officer (Group 'B'-Gazetted) w.e.f. 16.12.2008 and 04.06.2021 and retired on 31.10.2020 and April 2023 respectively.
4. On implementation of the recommendations of 6th CPC w.e.f. 01.01.2006, the posts of Stenographer Grade-II, Superintendent in S&DD were placed in Pay-Band of Rs.9,300-34,800 with GP Rs.4200 and post of AO also in the same PB-II with GP Rs.4600/-. The introduction of ACP Scheme vide OM dated 09.08.1999 and MACP Scheme vide OM dated 19.05.2009, the juniors to the applicants were granted higher GP than the applicants.
5. It is also the case of applicants that the information supplied under R.T.I. dated 18.01.2016 (Annexure A-3) reveals that applicant no.1 after three promotions got GP Rs.4600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2016 after last promotion as AO, whereas his immediate junior in the initial grade of Stenographer Grade-III namely Smt. Vaijayanti, without any promotion got GP Rs.4600/- w.e.f. 15.09.2006 as she was granted IInd financial upgradation under ACP Scheme and GP Rs.4800/- w.e.f. 15.09.2012 as 3rd MACP. There is anomaly that when junior never promoted got higher GP Rs.4600/- w.e.f. 15.09.2006 to 15.09.2012 and applicant no.1 drawn GP Rs.4200/- and also immediate junior drawn higher GP Rs.4800/- w.e.f. 15.09.2012 whereas applicant continued to draw GP Rs.4600/- w.e.f. 01.012016 till date and this anomaly deserves to be removed.
6. The applicants have also stated in the OA that other two juniors, not immediate junior to applicant no.1, in the initial grade of Stenographer Grade-III, namely, Smt. Sharmila and Shri Nirmal Kumar got GP Rs.4200/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006 after fixation of pay in 4 O.A. No. 427/2016 new pay scales, after 2nd financial upgradation they got GP Rs.4600/- under MACPs w.e.f. 10.12.2010 and 29.08.2011 respectively, and they would be entitled to GP Rs.4800/- or any equivalent pay scale after 7th CPC on completion of 30 years of service and after 30 years the applicant continue in GP Rs.4600/- till date of retirement.
7. Applicant no.2 was placed in GP Rs.4200/- as Stenographer Grade-II w.e.f. 03.09.1998 and promoted as Superintendent placed in same GP w.e.f. 01.06.2007 and GP Rs.4600/- w.e.f. 02.02.2015 after grant of IIIrd financial upgradation whereas juniors namely Smt. Sharmila and Shri Nirmal Kumar granted GP Rs.4600/- w.e.f. 24.02.2014 and 22.06.2015 respectively even without promoted to post of Superintendent.
8. The sum and substance case of applicants that posts of Superintendent and Administrative Officer in S&DD need to be granted GP Rs.5400/- and Rs.6600/- respectively w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and applicants Grade Pay is to be stepped up at par with their juniors from the date they are granted higher Grade Pay to remove all the anomalies.
9. Per contra, the respondents are contesting the claim of applicants by filing counter reply stating that applicants seeking relief to step up their pay with respect to juniors who got benefits of MACPs and with respect to staff Artists, being a distinct and separate cadre of Song & Drama Division. The fact of the matter that as per 6th CPC recommendations, Government of India merged the pay scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10,500 to a new scale in Pay Band-2 with GP Rs.4200/-, promotional post in these pay scales now carry the same Grade Pay Rs.4200. The merger of scales of pay as per 6th CPC is uniformly applicable to all the Central Government establishments covered under Central Pay Commission and not case of Song & Drama Division.
10. The posts of Superintendents and AO in S&DD are placed in pay scales on a pattern available with government officers in general and their pay scales on pattern with government officers and pay scales as per replacement scales recommended by 6th Pay 5 O.A. No. 427/2016 Commission. The Grade Pay system recommended by the 6th CPC is not discrimination among employees of Govt. of India but specify the level of the employees.
11. Respondents further stated in the counter reply that S&DD has three different Cadres of employees namely Staff-Artists (SA) Program Officers (PO) and the Administrative Cadre and each of this cadre performs different functions. The cadre of Staff Artists restructured into 4-tier hierarchy and upgraded pay scales in compliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court Order dated 02.05.2014 in SLP 1629/2009 against order dated 21.10.2008 in WP(C) 815/2008 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In compliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dated 02.05.2014, cadre of Staff Artists was restructured to provide promotion avenues.
12. Respondents have also stated in the reply that for stepping up of pay of both the junior and senior officers 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.
13. MACP Scheme stipulates that promotions earned/ upgradation granted under the ACP Scheme in the past to those grades which now carry the same grade pay due to merger of pay scales/upgradations of posts recommended by the Sixth CPC shall be ignored for the purpose of upgradations under MACP. Promotions earned in past carrying same GP in promotional hierarchy shall be counted for purpose of MACPs. Financial upgradation under MACP shall be purely personal to the employees and no additional financial upgradation for the senior employees on the ground that the junior employees in GP has got higher pay/grade pay under MACP and no stepping up of pay in the pay band or grade pay would be admissible with regard to junior getting more pay than the senior on account of pay fixation under MACP.
14. Rejoinder has been filed by the applicants stating that present OA is for removal of anomalies in their pay scales and grade pay-vis- à-vis their juniors in their cadre hierarchy. The officials juniors to the applicants within cadre who got higher GP than applicants after 6th CPC and implementation of MACP, OM dated 19.05.2009 w.e.f.
6 O.A. No. 427/201601.09.2008. Applicants also reiterated that details of anomalies are available in letter dated 18.01.2016 received under R.T.I. Act (Annexure A-3) with the OA.
15. Admitted facts in the case as incorporated by the applicants in the detailed spread sheet giving details both of applicants and juniors. The spread sheet was served on respondents and vide Order dated 07.11.2024, time was granted to the respondents to obtain appropriate instructions and file an affidavit. Thereafter, on 17.12.2024 the spread sheet was taken on record.
16. The dispute in the present case, as the stand of the respondents that as per the recommendations of the 6th CPC, Government of India merged the pay scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10,500 to a new scale in Pay Band-II with GP Rs.4200/- and promotional posts in these three pay scales now carries same GP of Rs.4200/-. Resultantly, on implementation of recommendations of 6th CPC w.e.f. 01.01.2006, the post of Stenographer Grade-II, Superintendent in S&DD placed in PB-II Rs.9,300-34,800 with GP Rs.4200 and post of AO in same PB-II with GP Rs.4600. The stand of the respondents that merger of scales of pay under 6th CPC uniformly applicable as accepted for Central Government establishments whereas stand of the applicants that promotion from Stenographer Gr.II GP Rs.4200/- to Superintendent is higher post with higher duties and responsibilities and respondents granted same GP Rs.4200/- and no benefit of promotion to post of Superintendent in terms of higher pay band. Whereas stand of applicants that juniors drawn higher grade pay without even promoted due to grant of financial upgradations and applicants deprived of said benefits and entitled for stepping up of pay by removal of pay anomalies and further direct the respondents to grant GP Rs.5400/- to the post of Superintendent and GP Rs.6600/- to the post of AO in S&DD w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and step-up basic pay/GP of applicants at par with their juniors.
7 O.A. No. 427/2016ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
17. Shri Vinay Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants argued and can be summarized as under -
(i) As evident from the spread sheet, the applicant no.1 has got the Grade Pay Rs.4200, when he was promoted from the post of Stenographer Grade-II to Superintendent on 01.05.2006. Whereas his junior Ms. Vaijenthi Manoharan, Stenographer Grade-III has got the GP Rs.4600, because of the second financial upgradation.
(ii) So also similarly, the applicant no.1 got promoted to the rank of ADO and pay was fixed in Level-7 GP Rs.4600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2016, whereas junior - Ms. Vaijenthi Manoharan, Stenographer Grade-III got the GP Rs.4800/- level-8 w.e.f. 01.01.2016 due to third financial upgradation.
(iii) Similarly, Applicant no.2 granted GP Rs.4200/- w.e.f. 01.06.2007 on her promotion from post of Stenographer Grade-II to Superintendent whereas juniors namely Ms. Sharmila and Mr. Nirmal Kumar, Superintendent have got GP Rs.4600/- from the date of their IInd financial upgradation w.e.f. 24.02.2014 and 22.06.2015 respectively.
(iv) The immediate junior namely Ms. Vajenthi Manoharan, Stenographer Grade-III was never promoted from the post of Stenographer Grade-III but received 1st, IInd and IIIrd financial upgradations on 09.08.1999 in GP Rs.4200/-; 15.09.2006 in GP Rs.4600/- and third financial upgradation on 15.09.2012 in GP Rs.4800/- in Level-8 w.e.f. 01.01.2016.
(v) Applicant no.2 his next junior namely Ms. Sharmila promoted on 01.05.2006 and Mr. Nirmal Kumar promoted on 01.06.2007 to the post of Stenographer Grade-II GP Rs.4200/-. So also applicant no.2 promoted to post of Stenographer Grade-II on 03.09.1998 with GP Rs.4200/-, there is no pay anomaly in cadre of Stenographer Grade-II. Meanwhile, juniors namely Ms. Sharmila received the second financial upgradation on 10.12.2010 and junior Mr. Nirmal Kumar also granted second financial upgradation on 29.08.2011, there was no pay anomaly in the cadre of Stenographer Grade-II in case of applicants.
8 O.A. No. 427/2016(vi) Applicant no.2 promoted on 01.06.2007 on the post of Superintendent in GP Rs.4200/-, whereas juniors to applicant no.2 also promoted i.e. Ms. Sharmila on 24.02.2014 and Mr. Nirmal Kumar on 22.06.2015 with higher GP Rs.4600/- Level-8 as a result of grant of IInd financial upgradation on 10.12.2010 and 29.08.2011 to juniors respectively.
(vii) Applicant no.2 was further promoted from post of Superintendent to Administrative Officer on 04.06.2021 in GP Rs.4600/-, Level-7 whereas both the juniors not promoted to the post of AO but they received IIIrd financial upgradation on 10.12.2020 and 29.08.2021 and placed in GP Rs.4800/-, Level-8, whereas applicant no.2 was drawing less pay as AO in GP Rs.4600.
18. Dr. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan, learned counsel for respondents vehemently submitted and can be summarized as -
(i) Applicant no.1 and 2 were initially appointed as Stenographer Grade-III on 19.06.1982 and 03.02.1984, promoted on 11.07.1997 and 03.09.1998 to the post of Stenographer Grade-II. Thereafter, they were further promoted to the post of Superintendent on 01.05.2006 and 01.06.2006 respectively. Applicant no.1 was also promoted on post of Administrative Officer on 01.05.2008 and applicant no.2 as AO on 02.02.2015.
(ii) Once applicants already granted promotions, thereafter they cannot be granted any stepping up of pay under F 22.
(iii) Applicants not entitled for relief sought in the OA as relevant 6th CPC replacement pay scales applicable for post of Stenographer Grade-II, Superintendent and Administrative Officers cadre and posts not been challenged in the present OA.
(iv) Applicants and so called their juniors were never in the same cadre and not in same posts, hence not entitled for benefits of statutory principles of stepping up of pay.
RULE OF LAW
19. Before dealing with the rival contentions advanced at the Bar, it is appropriate to quote relevant Scheme - stepping up of pay - consolidated guidelines applicable to the case on our hand, 9 O.A. No. 427/2016 judgments binding precedents in context of facts and core legal issue -
(A) Stepping up of pay - consolidated guidelines - DOP&T OM dated 26.10.2018, Government of India Order (26) given below Swamy's Compilation of Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules Part-1, 27th Edition and G.I. Orders (9) given below Rule 7 of Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, (Third Edition - 2023).The Consolidated guidelines on the stepping up of pay at one place keeping in view the provisions of FR 22(I)(a)(1) and FR 27 and provisions of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016 reads as -
"(9) Stepping up of pay Consolidated guidelines. It is directed to say that the issue of anomaly relating to senior Government employees drawing less pay than their juniors due to application of provisions of FR 22 (1) (a) (1) is considered on merits for allowing stepping up pay of the seniors so as to bring it at par with that of the junior in accordance with the guidelines scattered in various OMs noted in the margin. A need has been felt to consolidate guidelines on stepping up of pay at one place keeping in view the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, [ in short CCS (RP) Rules, 2016] as the frequent references on such issues continue to be received in this Department.
2. Consequent upon implementation of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016, the President is pleased to decide the following:-
(i) In order to remove the anomaly of a Government servant promoted or appointed to a higher post on or after 1-1-2016 drawing lower pay in that post than another Government servant junior to him in the lower grade and promoted or appointed subsequently to another identical post, the pay of the senior Government servant in the higher post should be stepped up to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for the junior Government servant in that higher post.
The stepping up should be done with effect from the date of promotion or appointment of the junior Government servant and will be subject to the following conditions, namely:
(a) both the junior and the senior Government servants should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted are identical in the same cadre;
(b) the Level in the Pay Matrix of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical;
(c) the anomaly is directly as a result of the application of the provisions of Fundamental Rule 22 (1)(a)(1) read with Rule 13 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016. For example, if the junior officer was drawing more pay in the existing pay structure than the senior by virtue of any advance increments granted to him, the 10 O.A. No. 427/2016 provisions of this sub-rule should not be invoked to step up the pay of the senior officer.
(ii) The order relating to re-fixation of the pay of the senior officer in accordance with Clause (i) shall be issued under Fundamental Rule 27 and the senior officer shall be entitled to the next increment on completion of his required qualifying service with effect from the date of re-fixation of pay.
3. The following instances/events wherein juniors draw more pay than seniors, do not constitute anomaly and, therefore, stepping up of pay will not be admissible in such events:-
(a) Where a senior proceeds on Extraordinary Leave which results in postponement of his Date of Next Increment in the lower post and consequently he starts drawing less pay than his junior in the lower grade itself. He, therefore, cannot claim pay parity on promotion even though he may be promoted earlier to the higher grade than his junior(s);
(b) If a senior forgoes/refuses promotion leading to his junior being promoted/appointed to the higher post earlier and the junior draws higher pay than the senior.
(c) If the senior is on deputation while junior avails of the ad hoc promotion in the cadre, the increased pay drawn by the junior due to ad hoc/officiating and/or regular promotion following such ad hoc promotion in the higher posts vis-a-vis senior, is not an anomaly in strict sense of the term;
(d) If a senior joins the higher post later than the junior, for whatsoever reasons, whereby he starts drawing less pay than the junior. In such cases, senior cannot claim stepping up of pay at par with that of his junior.
(e) If a senior is appointed later than the junior in the lower post itself whereby he is in receipt of lesser pay than the junior, in such cases also the senior cannot claim pay parity in the higher post if he draws less pay than his junior though he may have been promoted earlier to the higher post.
(f) Where an employee is promoted from lower post to a higher post, his pay is fixed with reference to the pay drawn by him in the lower post under FR 22 (1) (a) (1) read with Rule 13 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016 and due to his longer length of service in the lower grade, his pay may get fixed at a higher stage than that of a senior direct recruit appointed to the same higher grade and whose pay is fixed under different set of rules. For example, a Senior Secretariat Assistant (SSA) on promotion to the post of Assistant Section Officer (ASO) gets his pay fixed under FR 22 (I) (a) (1) with reference to the pay drawn in the post of SSA, whereas the pay of ASO (DR) is fixed under Rule 8 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016 at the minimum pay or the first Cell in the Level, applicable to ASO to which he is appointed. In such a case, the senior ASO (DR) cannot claim pay parity with that of the promotee junior ASO.11 O.A. No. 427/2016
(g) Where a senior is appointed in higher post on ad hoc basis and is drawing less pay than his junior who is appointed in the same cadre and in same post on ad hoc basis subsequently, the senior cannot claim pay parity with reference to the pay of that junior since the ad hoc officiating service in higher post is reversible and also since full benefits of FR 22 (I) (a) (1) are not available on ad hoc promotion but only on regular promotion following such ad hoc promotion without break.
(h) Where a junior gets more pay due to additional increments earned on acquiring higher qualifications.
NOTE. The above instances/events are only illustrative and not exhaustive.
4. These orders shall be in supersession of Department of Expenditure's OM. No. F. 2 (78)-E.III (A) 63, dated the 2nd February, 1966 and DoP&T's OM. No. 4/7/92-Estt (Pay-I), dated the 4th November, 1993.
5. This OM is effective from 1-1-2016.
6. In so far as persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department are concerned, these orders have been issued after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor- General of India."
[Emphasis supplied] CASE LAW
20. Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments on the principles of stepping up of the pay, whose implications was debated for ready reference are as under -
(i) In case of Union of India and Others Vs. P. Jagdish and Others, (1997) 3 SCC 176. Their Lordships held that direction to step up the pay is consistent with Article 39 (d) of the Constitution of India, equal pay for equal work and at any point of time cannot be pay disparity between two people serving in the same rank. Relevant paragraph reads as -
"7. So far as the second question is concerned, it depends upon the applicability of the principle of stepping up. Admittedly, the respondents had been promoted earlier juniors who were continuing as Senior Clerks against the identified posts carrying special pay of Rs. 35/- per month on being promoted to the post of Head Clerks later than the respondents got their pay fixed at a higher level than the respondents. Under the provisions of Fundamental Rules to remove the anamoly of a Government servant promoted or appointed to a higher post earlier drawing a lower rate of pay in that post then another Government servant junior to him in the lower grade and promoted or appointed subsequently to the higher post, the principle of stepping up of the pay is applied. In such cases the pay of the senior officer in the higher post is required to be stepped up to a figure equal to the pay as fixed the junior officer in that 12 O.A. No. 427/2016 higher post. The stepping up is required to be done with effect from the date of promotion or appointment of the junior officer. On refixation of the pay of the senior officer would be drawn on completion of the requisite qualifying service with effect from the date of the refixation of pay. This principle becomes applicble when the junior officer and the senior officer belong to the same category and the post from which they have been promoted and the promoted cadre the junior officer on being promoted later than the senior officer gets a higher pay. This being the principle of stepping up contained in the Fundamental Rules and admittedly the respondents being seniors to several other Senior Clerks and the respondents having been promoted earlier than many of their juniors who were promoted later to the post of Head Clerks, the principle of stepping up should be made applicable to the respondents with effect from the data their juniors in the erstwhile cadre of Senior Clerks get promoted to the cadre of Head Clerks and their pay was fixed at a higher slab that of the respondent. The stepping up should be done in such a way that the anomaly of juniors getting higher salary then the seniors in the promoted category of Head Clerk would be removed and the pay of the seniors like the respondents would be stepped up to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for their junior officer in the higher post of Head Clerk. In fact the Tribunal by the impugned order has directed to apply to apply the principle of stepping up and we see no infirmity with the same direction subject to the aforesaid clarifications. This principle of stepping up which we have upheld would prevent violation of equal pay for equal work but grant of consequential benefit of the difference of salary would not be correct for the reason that the respondents had not worked in the post to which 35% special pay was attached in the lower cader. But by reason of promotion the promotee- juniors who worked on the said posts, in fact, performed the hard duties and earned special pay. Directions to pay arrears world be deleterious to inculcation of efficiency in service. All persons who were indolent to share higher responsibilities in lower posts, on promotion would get accelerated arrears that would be deleterious to efficiency of service. Therefore, though direction to step up the pay on notional basis is consistent with Article 39(d) of the Constitution, it would be applicable only prospectively from the data of the promotion and the fixation of the scale stepping up of scale of pay would be perspective to calculate future increments on the scale of pay in promotional post only prospectively. The appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances there would not no order as to costs."
[Emphasis supplied]
(ii) In case of Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors. Vs. Sujit Baran Mukherjee & Ors. (1997) 11 SCC 463, Their Lordships observations on the principles of stepping up of the payoff the senior when junior starts getting higher pay reads -
"6. A reading thereof would clearly indicate that the principle of stepping up of the pay would arise only when a junior employee, on his promotion, is drawing higher pay than his seniors; in that case, they would be entitled to the stepping up of the pay so as to be on a par with him on the principle that the persons who are similarly situated and are drawing the same scale of pay and are doing the same duty and being senior to the persons drawing higher pay, 13 O.A. No. 427/2016 are entitled to have their pay stepped up but that principle is inapplicable to the situation, as in the present case, where a junior person on transfer to a different place is being paid extra payment by way of special pay or overtime pay, whatsoever the nomenclature be and would be treated to be a special pay since he has to discharge the duty outside his normal duty or due to special circumstances. Such a fortuitous circumstance would not be a ground for other seniors to claim parity of pay by stepping up of their scale of pay. If the contention is given acceptance, the extra salary would become payable to persons who do not take pains and do the normal work while staying in a convenient post/place with indolence whereas the person who undertakes special responsibility or puts up hard work would be put on a par; and stepping up of pay would be a premium on laziness and indolence. It would be deleterious to augmentation of efficiency in service or dedication to duty. Under those circumstances, we think that the statutory principle of stepping up of the pay so as to be on a par with the junior would be not on rational principle. When all of them discharge the same duties and are under the same responsibility and not in different circumstances and if the juniors draw higher pay on promotion, the seniors who do not get the opportunity would be entitled to parity of pay with their juniors.
[Emphasis supplied]
(iii) Gurucharan Singh Grewal & Anr. Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors., reported in (2009) 3 SCC 94 was seisin with the identical issue "whether appellants is entitled for stepping up of his pay even in his case there was a difference in the incremental benefits in the scale given to him and scale given to his juniors?" Their Lordships held as under:-
"17. Something may be said with regard to Mr Chhabra's submissions about the difference in increment in the scales in which Appellant 1 and Shri Shori are placed, but the same is still contrary to the settled principle of law that a senior cannot be paid a lesser salary than his junior. In such circumstances, even if there was a difference in the incremental benefits in the scale given to Appellant 1 and the scale given to Shri Shori, such anomaly should not have been allowed to continue and ought to have been rectified so that the pay of Appellant 1 was also stepped up to that of Shri Shori, as appears to have been done in the case of Appellant."
[Emphasis supplied]
(iv) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in identical facts and legal issue in case of Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs. Mahfooz Ali, WP(C) 575/2024 vide judgment dated 29.08.2024, upheld Order dated 18.05.2023 in OA No.3179 of 2017 Mahfooz Ali Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., Their Lordships held as under:-
14 O.A. No. 427/2016"8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that after the grant of the first ACP with effect from 09.08.1999, the respondent's pay was fixed at Rs. 3965/- while his counterparts who had exercised their option were given Rs. 3880/-, highlighting that the respondent was initially drawing higher salary than his counterparts even though they too had joined on the same date. Once the respondent chose not to exercise his option as required, he was precluded from making a claim at a later stage.
9. The issue before the learned CAT was that whether similarly situated persons will get salary at par with their counterparts.
10. Admittedly, the persons junior to the respondent are drawing higher pay and allowances. Both the fundamental rules and also Central Civil Services (revised pension) Rules provide for correcting this anomaly by way of stepping up the pay of the senior to bring it at par with the junior. This anomaly in the present case has a reason, i.e., on account of grant of financial upgradation under ACP. The said issue has been adequately thrashed out in the order dated 10.03.2023 passed in O.A. No. 3653/2017 as referred by the learned CAT. The learned CAT further quoted the relevant extract from the said judgment which has further relied upon the judgment passed in O.A. No. 3079/2012. Moreover, the said order has extensively quoted from the observations of the Hon'ble High Court in a similar matter. Para 4 of the said judgment passed in O.A. No. 3653/2017 reads as under:
"4. Learned counsel draws support from an order dated 10.12.2013 passed by this Bench of the Tribunal in OA No 3079 of 2019 wherein this Tribunal had held that in cases where an anomaly had arisen on account of grant of MACP/ACP to the junior, stepping up of pay would be attracted if the senior is drawing lesser pay although there may not be grant of a higher grade pay. He further draws attention to a judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal number 2087-2088 of 2022 which had examined this issue in detail and settled the principle that even if the anomaly has been created on account of upgradation under the ACP scheme, the pay of senior was required to be stepped up. For the sake of appreciating the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would be appropriate to quote the relevant extracts of the said judgment. Before that it would be relevant to reiterate that in the said matter also, the grievance of the applicants before the Tribunal (respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court) was that there claim for stepping up of pay had been denied on the ground that the juniors were drawing higher salary on account of ACP/MACP Scheme and hence in terms of the clarification of the government, benefit of FR 22 could not be extended to in their favour. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had thrashed out this issue threadbare and recorded as follows:
"5. The High Court has therefore rightly relied and/or considered FR 22 and the order issued by the Government of India on removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay, which reads as under: -15 O.A. No. 427/2016
"(22) Removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay of Senior on promotion drawing less pay than his junior - (a) As a result of application of FR 22 -C. [Now FR 22 (I) (a) (1)]. In order to remove the anomaly of a Government servant promoted or appointed to a higher post on or after 1-4-1961 drawing a lower rate of pay in that post than another Government servant junior to him in the lower grade and promoted or appointed subsequently to another identical post, it has been decided the in such cases the pay of the senior officer in the higher post should be stepped up to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for the junior officer in that higher post. The stepping up should be done with effect from the date of promotion or appointment of the junior officer and will be subject to the following conditions, namely: -
(a) Both the junior and senior officers 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 they 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, the above provisions will not be invoked to step up the pay of the senior officer."
The orders refixing the pay of the senior officers I accordance with the above provisions shall be issued under FR-27. The next increment of the senior officer will be drawn on completion of the requisite qualifying service with effect from the date of refixation of pay. [G.I., M.F., 0.M. No.F.2 [78)-E.III (A)/66, dated the 4th February, 1966)"..
6. Therefore, it was a case where a junior was drawing more pay on account of upgradation under the ACP Scheme and there was an anomaly and therefore, the pay of senior was required to be stepped up. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has rightly directed the appellants herein to step up the pay of the original writ petitioners keeping in view of pay scale which has been granted to the juniors from the date they have started drawing lesser pay than their juniors. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. No interference of this Court is called for. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeals deserve to be dismissed and the same are dismissed, accordingly."
11. In view of above, learned CAT rightly directed the petitioners that the respondent is entitled to the award of stepping up of pay with effect from the date higher pay was awarded to the immediate junior.
16 O.A. No. 427/201612. Accordingly, we find no error or perversity in the order passed by the learned CAT, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed along with pending application."
[Emphasis supplied]
(v) In case of Union of India Versus C.R. Madhava Murthy and Others, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 183. Relevant paragraphs 9 to 11 read as -
"9. Having heard Ms. Madhvi Divan, learned ASG and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, which has emerged from the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it cannot be said that the original writ petitioners were as such claiming the stepping up of the pay under the ACP Scheme. Their grievance was with respect to the anomaly in the pay scale and their grievance was that while granting upgradation under the ACP Scheme, their juniors were getting higher salaries than what they receive. Therefore, it was a case of removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay of seniors on promotion drawing a less pay than their juniors.
10. The High Court has therefore rightly relied and/or considered FR 22 and the order issued by the Government of India on removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay, which reads as under:
"(22) Removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay of Senior on promotion drawing less pay than his junior
(a) As a result of application of FR 22 C. [Now FR 22 (I)
(a) (1)]. In order to remove the anomaly of a Government servant promoted or appointed to a higher post on or after drawing a lower rate of pay in that post than another Government servant junior to him in the lower grade and promoted or appointed subsequently to another identical post, it has been decided the in such cases the pay of the senior officer in the higher post should be stepped up to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for the junior officer in that higher post. The stepping up should be done with effect from the date of promotion or appointment of the junior officer and will be subject to the following conditions, namely:
(a) Both the junior and senior officers 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 they are entitled to draw pay should be identical;
(c) The anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of FR22C. 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, the above provisions will not be invoked to step up the pay of the senior officer."17 O.A. No. 427/2016
The orders re-fixing the pay of the senior officers I accordance with the above provisions shall be issued under FR27. The next increment of the senior officer will be drawn on completion of the requisite qualifying service with effect from the date of re-fixation of pay. [G.I., M.F., 0.M. No.F.2 [78)E.III (A)/66, dated the 4th February, 1966)".
11. Therefore, it was a case where a junior was drawing more pay on account of upgradation under the ACP Scheme and there was an anomaly and therefore, the pay of senior was required to be stepped up. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has rightly directed the appellants herein to step up the pay of the original writ petitioners keeping in view of pay scale which has been granted to the juniors from the date they have started drawing lesser pay than their juniors. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. No interference of this Court is called for."
[Emphasis supplied]
(vi) The DB of this Tribunal in case of All India Postal Accounts Employees Association & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. - OA No.2124 of 011 (PB CAT - Delhi) vide order dated 01.02.2013, the applicants were aggrieved by Clause 8 of the ACP Scheme - "The financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme shall be purely personal to the employees and shall have no relevance to his seniority position. As such, there shall be no additional financial upgradation for the senior employees on the ground that the junior employees in the grade has got higher pay scale under the ACP Scheme." The main prayer was to declare Clause-8 of the ACP Scheme as ultra vires beyond the statute and their pay be stepped up to bring it at par with their juniors. The Tribunal allowed the OA in terms of Order dated 19.01.2010 in OA No.156-JK-2009 titled Ashok Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors. by Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal - reads as under:-
"8. On the other hand, the applicants have placed reliance on the judgment of Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal dated 19.01.2010 in OA-156-JK-2009(Ashok Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors.). Relevant portion of this judgment reads as under:-
"9. The issue raised in this case as to whether a senior person, though having received two promotions, is entitled to stepping up of his pay at par with his junior, who has been granted benefit under ACP Scheme and by virtue of this, is receiving higher pay than his senior, stands clinched by various decisions of this Tribunal including in O.A. No. 842- JK-2007 decided on 17.11.2009 titled Madan Gopal Sharma & Others Vs. Union of India & Others. In that case reliance was placed on decisions of Apex Court in the case of Ram Sarup Ganda (supra) and (Gurmail Singh).18 O.A. No. 427/2016
Reliance was also placed on decision in the case of Harcharan Singh Sudan (supra). It was held that seniors are entitled to step up their pay as a general rule as and when any junior gets fixed in a pay scale higher to them on account of grant of ACP Scale. Para 14 of the decision in the case of Harcharan Singh Sudan (supra) in Para 14 is reproduced as under:-
"14. However, one aspect is to be seen. In the case decided by the Apex Court, the State Government was the appellant and the challenge was against the High Court judgment, which held that the higher pay scale be given to the respondents at par with their juniors whose pay scale became higher on account of the benefit of ACP afforded to them. The appeal was not dismissed but partly allowed and it was declared that the respondents were entitled to stepping up of pay. In other words, there shall only be the stepping up of pay and not the pay scale. The pay scale in respect of the applicants would remain the same as of date but the pay would be fixed in appropriate stage, and if there is no stage to match the pay drawn by the junior, the difference shall be treated as one of personal pay. The pay parity would be compared annually and partly would be maintained in future."
10. Finding that the facts of this case are covered by the decision in the case of Harcharan Singh Sudan s case as well as Madan Gopal Sharma and Others (supra), this Original Application is allowed to the extent that annexure A- 2 relating to rejection of claim of applicant is quashed and set aside.
11. With this O.A. stands disposed of and the respondents are directed to step up the pay of the applicant at par with his junior aforesaid and in terms of the directions contained in the case of Harcharan Singh Sudan (supra). It is made clear that the applicant shall be given stepping up of pay only and not the pay scale, as explained above. The pay may be fixed accordingly and arrears be also paid to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, applicant is not entitled to interest. Parties to bear their own costs."
9. In our opinion, the case of the applicants is covered by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, hence they are also entitled to the same benefits. Accordingly, the present O.A. is allowed. Respondents are directed that the pay of the applicants be stepped up in terms of Para-9 of the aforesaid judgment. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs."
[Emphasis supplied]
(vii) In case of Union of India Vs. Indian Navy Design Officers Association & Anr., reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 173. Their Lordships, were seisin with main question for consideration whether the CAT, Tribunal as well as High Court decision directing 19 O.A. No. 427/2016 the appellants/UOI, to grant the JDOs the pay scale of Rs.7500- 12000 at par with Group 'B' - gazette posts of CTOs (Design) from the same date as it was given to the Group 'B' gazette posts with all consequential benefits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that both the Tribunal and High Court had committed gross error in interfering with the pay scales recommended by the Fifth Central Pay Commission and accepted by the appellant for the posts of JDOs and CTOs and in upgrading the pay scales of JTOs making it equivalent to the pay scale of CTOs. Relevant paragraphs 9 to 19 for ready reference reproduced as under:-
"9. Before adverting to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsels for the parties, it deserves to be noted that the power of judicial review of the High Courts in the matter of classification of posts and determination of pay scale is no more res integra. It has been consistently held by this Court in plethora of decisions that equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and the interference of the Court was absolutely necessary to undo the injustice.
10. In State of U.P. and Others Vs. J.P. Chaurasia and Others, while answering the questions as to whether the Bench Secretaries in the High Court of Allahabad were entitled to pay scale admissible to the Section Officers and whether the creation of two grades with different scales in the cadre of Bench Secretaries who were doing the same and similar work was violative of the right to have "equal pay for equal work". This Court observed as under: -
"18. The first question regarding entitlement to the pay scale admissible to Section Officers should not detain us longer. The answer to the question depends upon several factors. It does not just depend upon either the nature of work or volume of work done by Bench Secretaries. Primarily it requires among others, evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. More often functions of two posts may appear to be the same or similar, but there may be difference in degrees in the performance. The quantity of work may be the same, but quality may be different that cannot be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties. The equation of posts or equation of pay must be left to the executive Government. It must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission. They would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts. If there is any such determination by a Commission or Committee, the court should normally accept it. The court should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration."20 O.A. No. 427/2016
11. The afore-stated ratio was followed by this Court in Union of India and Others Vs. Makhan Chandra Roy. Again, in Secretary, Finance Department and Others Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association and Others, the claim of Sub-Registrars of West Bengal Registration Service claiming parity in pay scale with Munsiffs on the basis that Sub-Registrars were conferred gazetted status, was examined by this Court. It was elaborately observed in para 12 as under: -
"12. We do not consider it necessary to traverse the case law on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the appellants as it is well settled that equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like the Pay Commissions, etc. But that is not to say that the Court has no jurisdiction and the aggrieved employees have no remedy if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction. Courts must, however, realise that job evaluation is both a difficult and time-consuming task which even expert bodies having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found difficult to undertake sometimes on account of want of relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different groups of employees. This would call for a constant study of the external comparisons and internal relativities on account of the changing nature of job requirements. The factors which may have to be kept in view for job evaluation may include (i) the work programme of his department (ii) the nature of contribution expected of him (iii) the extent of his responsibility and accountability in the discharge of his diverse duties and functions (iv) the extent and nature of freedoms/limitations available or imposed on him in the discharge of his duties (v) the extent of powers vested in him (vi) the extent of his dependence on superiors for the exercise of his powers (vii) the need to co- ordinate with other departments, etc. We have also referred to the history of the service and the effort of various bodies to reduce the total number of pay scales to a reasonable number. Such reduction in the number of pay scales has to be achieved by resorting to broad banding of posts by placing different posts having comparable job charts in a common scale. Substantial reduction in the number of pay scales must inevitably lead to clubbing of posts and grades which were earlier different and unequal. While doing so care must be taken to ensure that such rationalisation of the pay structure does not throw up anomalies. Ordinarily a pay structure is evolved keeping in mind several factors, e.g., (i) method of recruitment, (ii) level at which recruitment is made, (iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre, (iv) minimum educational/technical qualifications required, (v) avenues of promotion, (vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities, (vii) the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs, (viii) public dealings, (ix) satisfaction level,
(x) employer's capacity to pay, etc. We have referred to these matters in some detail only to emphasise that several factors have to be kept in view while evolving a pay structure and the horizontal and vertical relativities have to 21 O.A. No. 427/2016 be carefully balanced keeping in mind the hierarchical arrangements, avenues for promotion, etc. Such a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. It is presumably for this reason that the Judicial Secretary who had strongly recommended a substantial hike in the salary of the Sub-Registrars to the Second (State) Pay Commission found it difficult to concede the demand made by the Registration Service before him in his capacity as the Chairman of the Third (State) Pay Commission. There can, therefore, be no doubt that equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and Court's interference is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice."
12. In State of Haryana and Others Vs. Charanjit Singh and Others, a three-judge Bench in a referred matter considered whether the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work", was an abstract doctrine, and observed thus: -
"19. Having considered the authorities and the submissions we are of the view that the authorities in the cases of Jasmer Singh [(1996) 11 SCC 77 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 210 :
AIR 1997 SC 1788 : (1997) 2 LLJ 667] , Tilak Raj [(2003) 6 SCC 123 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 828] , Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology [(2003) 5 SCC 188 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 645 : (2003) 2 LLJ 968] and Tarun K. Roy [(2004) 1 SCC 347 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 225] lay down the correct law. Undoubtedly, the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a court of law. But equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" has no mechanical application in every case. Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who were left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In service matters, merit or experience can be a proper basis for classification for the purposes of pay in order to promote efficiency in administration. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. The very fact that the person has not gone through the process of recruitment may itself, in certain cases, make a difference. If the educational qualifications are different, then also the doctrine may have no application. Even though persons may do the same work, their quality of work may differ. Where persons are selected by a Selection Committee on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority a higher pay scale granted to such persons who are evaluated by the competent authority cannot be challenged. A classification based on difference in educational qualifications justifies a difference in pay scales. A mere nomenclature designating a person as say a carpenter or a craftsman is not enough to 22 O.A. No. 427/2016 come to the conclusion that he is doing the same work as another carpenter or craftsman in regular service. The quality of work which is produced may be different and even the nature of work assigned may be different. It is not just a comparison of physical activity. The application of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work. There may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. Thus normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. These are not matters where a writ court can lightly interfere. Normally a party claiming equal pay for equal work should be required to raise a dispute in this regard. In any event, the party who claims equal pay for equal work has to make necessary averments and prove that all things are equal. Thus, before any direction can be issued by a court, the court must first see that there are necessary averments and there is a proof. If the High Court is, on basis of material placed before it, convinced that there was equal work of equal quality and all other relevant factors are fulfilled it may direct payment of equal pay from the date of the filing of the respective writ petition. In all these cases, we find that the High Court has blindly proceeded on the basis that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work applies without examining any relevant factors."
13. In Union of India through Secretary, Department of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and Anr. Vs. T.V.L.N Mallikarjuna Rao, this Court reiterated the said position:
-
"26. The classification of posts and determination of pay structure comes within the exclusive domain of the executive and the Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service. There may be more grades than one in a particular service."
14. In view of the afore-stated legal position, it clearly emerges that though the doctrine "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of Law, the equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the Judiciary. The Courts therefore should not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions which undertake rigorous exercise for job evaluation after taking into consideration several factors like the nature of work, the duties, accountability and responsibilities attached to the posts, the extent of powers conferred on the persons holding a particular post, the promotional avenues, the Statutory rules governing the conditions of service, the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs etc. It may be true that the nature of work involved in two posts may sometimes appear to be more or less similar, however, if the classification of 23 O.A. No. 427/2016 posts and determination of pay scale have reasonable nexus with the objective or purpose sought to be achieved, namely, the efficiency in the administration, the Pay Commissions would be justified in recommending and the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scales for the seemingly similar posts. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues or frustration due to longer duration of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. It is also a well-accepted position that there could be more than one grade in a particular service. The classification of posts and the determination of pay structure, thus falls within the exclusive domain of the Executive, and the Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service.
15. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it is not disputed that the Recruitment Rules governing the JDOs are as per the SRO 367 dated 08.12.1996, as amended by SRO 246 dated 21.11.2002, whereas the Recruitment Rules governing the CTOs (Design) are as per the SRO 132 dated 12.05.1982. The probation period in case of CTOs is longer than that of JDOs. The duties and responsibilities of both the posts are different and the promotional avenues also have different duration and different criteria. There was not a single error, much less grave error pointed out by learned Senior Advocate. Mr. Khurshid, in the fixation of the pay scales for the JDOs and CTOs, which would have justified the interference of the Tribunal.
16. Much emphasis was placed by the learned senior advocate Mr. Khurshid on the noting made by the Officer of the Naval Department in the file recommending pay scale of JDOs equivalent to that of CTOs, however, it may be noted that a noting recorded in the file is merely an expression of opinion by a particular officer, and by no-stretch of imagination such noting could be treated as a decision of the Government 6.
17. The powers of judicial review in the matters involving financial implications are also very limited. The wisdom and advisability of the Courts in the matters concerning the finance, are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless a gross case of arbitrariness or unfairness is established by the aggrieved party.
18. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal and the High Court had committed gross error in interfering with the pay scales recommended by the Fifth Central Pay Commission and accepted by the appellant for the posts of JDOs and CTOs, and in upgrading the pay scale of JDOs making it equivalent to the pay scale of CTOs.
19. Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are quashed and set aside. The appeal stands allowed accordingly."
[Emphasis supplied] ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS AS TO ISSUE NO.1
21. The Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 notified on 29.08.2008 [for brevity hereinafter referred to as "Rules 2008"] came in force from 1st January, 2006 with present scale in relation 24 O.A. No. 427/2016 to the posts/grade and "pay in the pay bands with grade pay is the amount fixed corresponding to the pre-revised pay scales/posts". The scale of pay of posts - as stipulated in Rule 4 - scale of pay of posts - the pay-band and grade pay or the pay scale as applicable to every post/grade specified in Column 2 of first Schedule. Rule 5 provides the drawl of pay in the revised pay structure applicable to the post to which he is appointed.
22. Rule 13 envisaged fixation of pay on promotion on or after 01.01.2006 from one grade pay to another in the revised pay structure, the fixation will be done as provided with arrears of pay on account of revision of pay relevant period from 01.01.2006 ending 31.08.2008.
23. The Schedule - the first schedule under Rules 3 & 4 - Part-A provided for revised Pay Bands and Grade Pay for posts carrying present scales in Group A, B, C & D except posts for which different revised scales are notified separately.
24. Part-B - Section-4 of First Schedule provides for revised pay scales for certain common categories of staff-on account of merger of pre-revised pay scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500, some posts which presently constitute feeder and promotion grades will come to lie in an identical grade. The posts in these three scales merged and posts in these pay scales on functional considerations, posts in these pay scales of Rs.5000- 8000 and Rs.5500-9000 should be merged, with the post in the scale of Rs.6500-10,500 being upgraded to the next higher grade in pay-band PB-2 i.e. to the Grade Pay Rs.4600 corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.7450-11,500. In case a post already exists in the scale of Rs.7450-11,500, the post being upgraded from the scale of Rs.6500-10,500 should be merged with the post in the scale of Rs.7450-11,500/-.
25. As evident from the pleadings of the case in our hand that prior to implementation of the recommendations of the 6th CPC, the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 notified on 29.08.2008 and implemented w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Song and Drama Division is one of the media units of Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. Before 25 O.A. No. 427/2016 implementation of the recommendations of the 6th CPC, the posts of Stenographer Grade-II in pay scale of Rs.5000-15-8000, Superintendent in pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000 and Administrative Officer in pay scale Rs.6500-200-10,500/-.
26. So also, as evident from Part-A, Section-1 of the first Schedule under Rules 3 & 4 - the scale of pay of posts under Rules 2008, the revised Pay Bands and Grade Pays for posts carrying present scales, for ready reference relevant portion is reproduced as under:-
"PART-A SECTION-I Revised Pay Bands and Grade Pays for posts carrying present scales in Group 'A', 'B', 'C', & 'D' except posts for which revised scales are notified separately.
Present Scale Revised Pay Structure
Sl. Post/ Present Scale Name of Corresponding Corresponding
No. Grade Pay Pay Bands/ Grade pay
Band/Scale Scales
1 to xxx xxx Xxx Xxx Xxx
9
10. S-9 5000-150-8000 PB-2 9300-34800 4200
11. S-10 5500-175-9000 PB-2 9300-34800 4200
12. S-11 6500-200-6900 PB-2 9300-34800 4200
13. S-12 6500-200- PB-2 9300-34800 4200
10500
14. S-13 7450-225- PB-2 9300-34800 4600
11500
15. S-14 7500-250- PB-2 9300-34800 4800
12000
16. S-15 8000-275- PB-2 9300-34800 5400
13500
[Emphasis supplied]
27. In Part-B of the first Schedule revised pay scales for certain common categories of staff at the cost of repetition provided on account of merger of pre-revised pay scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10,500 some posts which presently constitutes feeder and promotion grades lies in an identical grade. In cases where it is not feasible to merge the posts in the scale of Rs.5000-8000 and Rs.5500-9000, should be merged with post in the scale of Rs.6500-10,500/- being upgraded to the next higher grade in pay band PB-2 i.e. to the GP in Rs.4600 corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale Rs.7450-11,5000 and post being upgraded from scale of Rs.6500-10500 should be merged with the post in the scale of Rs.7450-11,500 i.e. corresponding to revised pay band PB-2 of Rs.9300-34,800, along with grade pay of Rs.4600.26 O.A. No. 427/2016
28. We have analyzed in detail the Rules 2008 and corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale for post of Stenographer Grade-II, Superintendent and Administrative Officer. We found from therein that as per Rules 2008, pay scales of Rs.5000-15-8000 for Stenographer Grade-II, Superintendent Rs.5500-175-9000 and Administrative Officer in Rs.6500-200-10,500 in Song and Drama Division has been now placed in revised pay structure in PB-II Rs.9300-34,800/- with GP Rs.4200 so far posts of Stenographer Grade-II and Superintendent and the post of AO placed in PB-II Rs.9300-34,800 with GP Rs.4600 in accordance with statutory Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
29. Grievance of the applicants that these two posts of Stenographer Grade-II and Superintendent cannot be merged as envisaged under Section of Part-B of first Schedule of Rules, 2008. Learned counsel for applicants contended that Superintendent is a Group 'B' supervisory post and work of Stenographer Grade-II Group 'C' is different and as such said 6th CPC recommendations resulted in the anomaly by keeping promotional post and feeder cadre post in one PB-II Rs.9300-34800 in GP Rs.4200 and even staff Artists and subordinate to applicants granted higher grade pays.
30. Applicants are also seeking to remove anomaly occurred due to implementation of 6th CPC due to merger of pre-revised pay scales for Stenographer Grade-II and Superintendent and AO w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and seeking direction to respondents to grant GP Rs.5400 to the post of Superintendent and GP Rs.6600 to the post of AO in S&DD w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and to step-up the basic pay/GP of applicants at par with their juniors.
31. Applicant no. 1 & 2 appointed initially on the post of Stenographer Grade-III on 19.06.1982 and 03.02.1984 and promoted to the post of Stenographer Grade II on 11.07.1997 and 03.09.1998 in pre-revised pay Rs.5500-15-8000 and further promoted on 01.05.2006 and 01.06.2007 to the post of Superintendent in pre-revised pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000. Thereafter promoted to the post of AO on 01.05.2008 and 04.06.2021 in pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-200-10,500/-27 O.A. No. 427/2016
respectively and both the applicants stand superannuated on 31.10.2020 and April, 2023 respectively.
32. Admittedly, applicants have neither challenged vires of Rules, 2008 nor any provision and seeking grant of Grade Pay Rs.5400/- to the post of Superintendent and GP Rs.6600 to the post of A.O. w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and seeking removal of anomaly contrary to statutory Rules, 2008. We have already examined the matter so far relates to grant of higher grade pay as indicated hereinabove, power of judicial review in matters pertaining to seeking upgradations of pay scales is limited and is realm of the employer-respondents and expert bodies.
33. Hon'ble Supreme Court in recent judgment in case of Union of India Vs. Indian Navy Design Officers Association & Anr. (supra), relevant paragraphs already extracted in preceding paragraphs. Their Lordships held that original petitioners already accepted the recommendations of Pay Commissions and accepted the pay scales and classification of posts and determination of pay structure falls within the exclusive domain of executives, Courts and Tribunals should not interfere and matters concerning finance are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review. So also, it is not disputed that S&DD has three distinct cadres of Staff Artists, Program Officers and Administrative Cadre with distinct functions and as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 02.05.2014 in SLP 1629/2009 [arising out of WP(C) 815/2008 vide order dated 21.10.2008 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi], the cadre of Staff Artists restructured and same is not under challenge in the present OA. We do not find any merit in the contention of counsel for applicants for grant of higher grade pay GP Rs.5400/- to the post of Superintendent and GP Rs.6600/- to the post of A.O. as applicants already accepted the revised pay scales pursuant to 6th CPC recommendations under Rules, 2008 and vires of relevant rules under Rules 2008 not been called in question in the present OA which, in our considered view, is bereft of merit.28 O.A. No. 427/2016
AS TO ISSUE NO.2
34. Now, we are examining the another aspect of the case in our hand related to the stepping up of the pay of both the applicants at par with their so called juniors to resolve the issue of anomaly stating that applicants being seniors to their junior drawing less pay. The statutory principles of stepping up of pay is based on Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India, of equal pay for equal work and at any point of time, there cannot be any pay disparity between two person serving in the same rank/same cadre.
35. Shri Vinay Gupta, learned counsel for applicants vociferously contended and gist of his arguments that both the applicants are aggrieved by the implementation of recommendations of 6th CPC w.e.f. 01.01.2006 whereby the post of Stenographer Grade-II, Superintendent in S&DD placed in Pay Band-II, Rs.9300-34,800/- with GP Rs.4200/- and the post of A.O. was placed in the same PB-II with GP Rs.4600/-. Mr. Gupta contended that anomaly arisen due to merger of pre-revised pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 of Stenographer Grade-II Rs.5500-175-9000 for Superintendent now merged in revised pay structure and placed in PB-II in GP Rs.4200/- and post of A.O. now carries revised pay in PB-II with GP Rs.4600/- whereas officials who are much subordinate to applicants i.e. Stage Artists, Training Assistant, Copyist are granted GP Rs.5400/- after 30 years service and Copyist who work under Superintendent and AO. Hence, applicants need to be granted GP Rs.5400/- for Superintendent and GP Rs.6600/- for A.O. w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and applicants pay be stepped up by granting said grade pays w.e.f. 01.01.2016 at par with their juniors. Applicants discharged higher responsibilities received less pay than juniors.
36. Dr. C.S. Khan, learned CGSC for respondents vehemently argued that the applicants are aggrieved by replacement pay scales as per 6th CPC w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and not challenged Rules 2008 and also accepted the revised pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.2006, hence no relief can be granted. Dr. Khan further argued that applicants cannot claim any benefits of statutory principles of stepping up of pay as there is no pay anomaly due to FR 22 (I)(a)(1). So also applicant no.1 was never in any same promotional post in same 29 O.A. No. 427/2016 cadre with Mrs. Vajenthi Manoharn, Stenographer Grade-III (immediate junior in Stenographer Grade-III) so also with other employee Mrs. Sharmila promoted as Superintendent on 24.02.2014 and Mr. Nirmal Kumar on 22.06.2015 with GP Rs.4600 and applicant no.1 was never in same post and same cadre with Mrs. Sharmila and Nirmal Kumar. So also applicant no.2 promoted as Superintendent on 01.06.2007 with PB-II GP Rs.4200 and A.O. with GP Rs.4600 on 04.06.2021 and retired in April, 2023 in GP Rs.4600 whereas juniors Smt. Sharmila, Superintendent joined applicant no.2 in same post and cadre on 24.02.2014 till 02.02.2015 with GP Rs.4600 whereas Mr. Nirmal Kumar, Superintendent promoted with GP Rs.4600/- on 22.06.2015 (Level-
7), whereas applicant no.2 already promoted as A.O. on 04.06.2021 with GP Rs.4600 (Level-7). Both applicants were never in same post and same cadre, hence not entitled for stepping up of pay with Mrs. Vaijenthi Manoharan, Smt. Sharmila and Mr. Nirmal Kumar.
37. Before dealing with rival contentions with respect to stepping up of pay as claimed by the applicants, it is apposite to reproduce the spread sheet prepared by applicants based on information under RTI Act, 2005 dated 18.01.2016 (Annexure A-3). For ready reference spread sheet as prepared by applicants reads -
"Details of anomalies occurred after implementing the recommendations of 6th CPC in the Grade Pay of the persons promoted as Superintendent and Administrative Officer in S&DD after they were initially appointed as Stenographer Gr.II through Staff Selection Commission.
Sl. Name Date Pay Scale Date of 1st Date Pay Date of Date Pay Date Date Pay
No of financial of Scale/ 2nd of 2nd Scale/ of 3rd of 3rd Band/
initial upgra- 1st Grade Pay finan- promo Grade Pay financ promo Level
appoi dation promo cial -tion ial -tion
nt- -tion upgra- upgra
ment dation dation
1 V.V. 19.06 330-560 - - 11.07 9300- - 01.05 9300- - 01.05 9300-
krishna .1982 1200- 2040 . 34800 + . 34800 + . 3480
Sharma (w.e.f. 1997 4200 2006 4200 2008 0+
(Applicant 1.1.1986) 4600
No.1) (Level
-7)
w.e.f.
1.1.
2016)
2 Vaijenthi 15.09. 330-560 - 09.08. - 9300- 15.09 - 9300- 15.09. - 9300-
Manoharan 1982 1200- 2040 1999 34800 + 2006 34800 + 2012 34800
(w.e.f. 4200 4600 +
1.1.1986) 4800
(Level-
8)
w.e.f.
1.1.
2016)
3 Manju 03.02 330-560 - - 03.09 9300- - 01.06 9300- 02.02 04.06 Level-
Sharma .1984 1200- 2040 . 34800 + . 34800 + . . 7
(Applicant (w.e.f. 1998 4200 2007 4200 2015 2021
no.2) 1.1.1986)
4 Sharmila 10.12. 1200-2040 10.12. 01.05. 9300- 10.12. 24.02. 9300- 10.12. - Level-
1990 2002 2006 34800 + 2010 2014 34800 + 2020 8
4200 4600
Nirmal 29.08. 1200-2040 29.08. 01.06 9300- 29.08. 22.06. 9300- 29.08. - Level-
5 Kumar 1981 2003 2007 34800 + 2011 2015 34800 + 2021 8
4200 4600
Note: Officer at Sl. No.1 who got all three promotions without financial upgradations was given G.Pay of Rs.4200 after second promotion and Rs.4600 after third promotion. Whereas his junior Smt. Vaijayanti who got all three financial upgradations without single promotion was given G.Pay of Rs.4600 after second financial upgradation and Rs.4800 after third financial upgradation. Similarly officer at Sl. No.2 after three promotions got lesser Grade Pay than her juniors who got higher Grade Pays after 2nd and 3rd financial upgradations. Meaning thereby, officers who got all three promotions and discharged higher responsibilities got less Grade Pay than their juniors who got higher Grade Pays without discharging higher responsibilities. This is the 30 O.A. No. 427/2016 anomaly which is to be removed by the UoI. This has occurred because Stenographer Gr.II and Superintendent have been placed in the same Pay Band and Grade Pay as per 6th CPC recommendations implemented by the UoI.
6th CPC Pay Scales: Stenographer Gr.II: 9300-34,800 + 4200, Superintendent: 9300-34800 + 4200 and Administrative Officer: 9300-34800 + 4600."
38. We have already extracted the consolidated guidelines on the subject - stepping up of pay - on the issue of anomaly relating to seniors drawing less pay than their juniors due to application of provisions of F.R.22(I)(a)(1). On implementation of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016, and keeping in view Rules, 2016, the stepping - up of pay guidelines dated 26.10.2018 issued so as to bring seniors at par with that of the junior in accordance with these guidelines.
39. The stepping up of pay - consolidated guidelines provide that if a government servant promoted on or after 01.01.2016 drawing lower pay in that post should be stepped to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for the junior government servant in that higher post. The stepping of pay should be done from date of promotion or appointment of the junior government servant subject to both junior and senior government servants belong to same cadre and post and identical in same cadre and level in pay matrix also be identical. So also to be entitled for stepping up of pay anomaly is direct result of application of F.R.22(I)(a)(1) read with Rule 13 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016. The order related to re-fixation of pay of the senior officer in accordance with Clause (i) of guidelines shall be issued under F.R. 27 and the senior officer shall be entitled to the next increment on completion of required qualifying service with effect from date of re- fixation of pay.
40. Now applying the aforesaid statutory principles of stepping up of pay in case of applicant no.1 and 2 in light of factual matrix as provided in the spread sheet reproduced hereinabove, with contentions of applicants. As evident from the spread sheet and information dated 18.01.2016 under R.T.I. (Annexure A-3). Applicant no.1 was initially appointed on the post of Stenographer Grade-III on 19.06.1982 in pre-revised pay scale Rs.330-560-1200- 2040 so also his junior Mrs. Vaijenthi Manoharan appointed on 15.09.1982 on the same post Stenographer Grade-III in the same cadre in same pay scale. Applicant no.1 was further promoted to the post of Stenographer Grade-II on 11.07.1997, whereas his junior 31 O.A. No. 427/2016 Mrs. Vaijenthi Manoharan Stenographer Grade-III never promoted and remained on the post of Stenographer Grade-III and benefit of 1st financial upgradation given on 09.08.1999 in PB-II GP Rs.4200, IInd financial upgradation on 15.09.2006 in PB-II GP Rs.4600 and IIIrd financial upgradation sanctioned on 15.09.2012 with PB-II in GP Rs.4800 (Level-8 w.e.f. 01.01.2016) as evident from spread sheet filed by the applicants. It is the admitted fact that in the initial post/cadre of Stenographer Grade-III so far as Mrs. Vaijenthi Manoharan, immediate junior in Stenographer Grade-III post and in same cadre there is no anomaly with applicant no.1. It is also the fact of the matter that Mrs. Vaijenthi Manoharan, remained posted in the post of Stenographer Grade-III and never promoted. It is also not disputed that due to grant of IInd financial upgradation on 15.09.2006 in PB-II+GP Rs.4600 and IIIrd financial upgradation in PB-II+GP Rs.4800 (Level-8) on 15.09.2012, she continued and never promoted from initial post of Stenographer Grade-III. Applicant no.1 is claiming stepping up of pay at par with junior Mrs. Vaijenthi Manoharan, Stenographer Grade-III on the ground that on 15.09.2006 on IIIrd financial upgration Mrs. Vaijenthi Manoharan started drawing pay in revised replacement scale PB-II + GP Rs.4600 in 6th CPC pay scales, whereas applicant no.1 on 01.05.2006 promoted from post of Stenographer Grade-II to Superintendent in PB-II + GP Rs.4200, less than Mrs. Vaijenthi Manoharan and further Mrs. Vaijenthi Manoharan on receipt of IIIrd financial upgradation from 15.09.2012 drawn pay in revised pay PB-II + GP Rs.4800 (Level-8 we.f. 01.01.2016) in the post of Stenographer Grade-III.
41. We have already extracted consolidated guidelines for stepping up of pay OM dated 26.10.2018 and binding precedents on the principles of stepping up of pay. What comes out loud and clear that for benefits of statutory principles of stepping up of pay to remove pay anomaly are subject to following conditions:-
(i) A government servant promoted or appointed to a higher post earlier drawing a lower rate of pay in that post than another government servant junior to him in lower grade and promoted or appointed subsequently to the higher post, the principle of stepping 32 O.A. No. 427/2016 up of pay is applied and pay of senior officer in higher post is required to be stepped up to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for the junior officer in that higher post w.e.f. the date of promotion or appointment of junior, the next increment of said officer would be drawn on completion of requisite qualifying service w.e.f. the date of re-fixation of pay.
(ii) This statutory principle becomes applicable when condition is fulfilled that the junior officer and the senior officer belong to the same category and the post from where they have been promoted later than the senior officer gets a higher pay.
42. It is also pertinent to mention that in service jurisprudence in the legal sense, the word 'Cadre' is defined in FR 9(4) - Cadre means the strength of a service or a part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit. Posts carrying identical pay scale and same duties and responsibilities constitute a separate cadre with principles of seniority computed on the basis of service in cadre.
43. Now again coming to the case in hand that in light of statutory principles of stepping up of pay. In our considered opinion, applicant no.1, admittedly being senior in the post of Stenographer Grade-III and junior Mrs. Vaijenthi Manoharan, Stenographer Grade-III and there is no pay anomaly alleged in the cadre of Stenographer Grade-III in pay scale Rs.330-560-1200-2024 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Applicant no.1 and Mrs. Vaijenthi Manoharan were never promoted or appointed simultaneously in same post and same cadre i.e. Stenographer Grade-II, Superintendent or Administrative Officer, hence no legal right accrued in favour of the applicant no.1 to seek stepping up at par with Mrs. Vaijenthi Manoharan, Stenographer Grade-III w.e.f. 15.09.2006 as applicant no.1 was already promoted as Superintendent on 01.05.2006 in PB- II GP Rs.4200 and A.O. on 01.05.2008 in PB-II GP Rs.4600. Both applicant no.1 and Mrs. Vaijenthi Manoharan were never belonged to same cadre and the posts in which pay anomaly alleged and no identical pay scales of lower and higher post so also no anomaly directly as a result of FR 22(I)(a)(1).
33 O.A. No. 427/201644. We have also examined claim of stepping up of pay of applicant no.1 with respect of juniors (not immediate juniors) namely Mrs. Sharmila and Nirmal Kumar, initially appointed in same post of Stenographer Grade-III and promoted as Superintendent on 24.02.2014 and 22.06.2015 in PB-II GP Rs.4600 and after IIIrd financial upgradation drawn GP Rs.4800 (Level-8) whereas applicant no.1 promoted on 01.05.2006 as Superintendent in PB-II GP Rs.4200 and A.O. on 01.05.2008 with PB-II GP Rs.4600 (Level-7 w.e.f. 01.01.2016). It is clear as noon day from the spread sheet that applicant no.1 was never belonged to post of Superintendent in a period of time when Mrs. Sharmila and Nirmal Kumar were promoted on 24.02.2014 and 22.06.2015. Applicant no.1 promoted as Superintendent on 01.05.2006 and held the post till 30.04.2008. Thereafter applicant no.1 promoted as A.O. on 01.05.2008 and retired on 31.10.2020. Thus, applicant no.1 and junior Mrs. Vaijenthi Manoharan were never in same post/same grade pay in cadre of Superintendent and A.O. and principles of stepping up of pay is not attracted.
45. Now examining the claim of applicant no.2 on anvil of the statutory principles of stepping up of pay contained in F.R. and CCS (RP) Rules. Applicant no.2 appointed on 03.02.1984 and juniors namely Mrs. Sharmila appointed on 10.12.1990 and Mr. Nirmal Kumar on 29.08.1991 all on initial appointment on post of Stenographer Grade-III and there is no pay anomaly on said post. Applicant no.2 promoted on 03.09.1998 and juniors Mrs. Sharmila on 01.05.2006 and Nirmal Kumar on 01.06.2007, all promoted to the post of Stenographer Grade-II, PB-II GP Rs.4200, no pay anomaly alleged.
46. Applicant no.2 further promoted as Superintendent, PB-II, GP Rs.4200/- w.e.f. 01.06.2007 and juniors namely Mrs. Sharmila promoted w.e.f. 24.02.2014 and Nirmal Kumar w.e.f. 22.06.2015 with higher pay PB-II, GP Rs.4600 and pay anomaly crept in as juniors promoted and belonged to same post and same cadre of Superintendent.
47. In our considered opinion, the applicant no.2 being senior to juniors namely Mrs. Sharmila and Nirmal Kumar promoted from 34 O.A. No. 427/2016 lower post - Stenographer Grade-II to Superintendent on 24.02.2014 and 22.06.2015 respectively in PB-II, GP Rs.4600 (due to IInd financial upgradation on 10.12.2010 and 29.08.2011 to Mrs. Sharmila and Mr. Nirmal Kumar respectively) whereas applicant no.2 received from 24.02.2014 (date of promotion of junior Sharmila) less pay in PB-II with GP Rs.4200 and in our view, applicant no.2 is entitled for stepping up of pay in such a way that the pay anomaly with junior namely Mrs. Sharmila, be rectified in the post of Superintendent and cadre. Respondents are directed to step up pay of applicant no.2 to a figure equal to the pay as fixed, in such a way at par with junior namely Mrs. Sharmila, Superintendent getting higher salary since 24.02.2014 in GP Rs.4600 than applicant no.2, Superintendent GP Rs.4200/- till 03.06.2021 (date of next promotion as A.O. on 04.06.2021).
48. The pay anomaly in case of applicant no.2 vis-à-vis her juniors arisen due to grant of IInd financial upgradation to both the juniors on 10.12.2010 and 29.08.2011 respectively and thereafter next promotion as Superintendent in PB-II GP Rs.4600 on 24.02.2014 and 22.06.2015 respectively. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Gurucharan Singh Grewal & Anr. Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. (supra) and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) 575/2024 vide judgment dated 29.08.2024 in case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Mahfooz Khan wherein Their Lordships held-
"6. Therefore, it was a case where a junior was drawing more pay on account of upgradation under the ACP Scheme and there was an anomaly and therefore, the pay of senior was required to be stepped up. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has rightly directed the appellants herein to step up the pay of the original writ petitioners keeping in view of pay scale which has been granted to the juniors from the date they have started drawing lesser pay than their juniors. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. No interference of this Court is called for. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeals deserve to be dismissed and the same are dismissed, accordingly."
11. In view of above, learned CAT rightly directed the petitioners that the respondent is entitled to the award of stepping up of pay with effect from the date higher pay was awarded to the immediate junior.
12. Accordingly, we find no error or perversity in the order passed by the learned CAT, finding no merit in the 35 O.A. No. 427/2016 present petition, the same is dismissed along with pending application."
[Emphasis supplied]
49. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. C.R. Mahadev Murthy & Ors. (supra), Their Lordships seisin with grievance with respect to the anomaly in the pay scale due to granting upgradations under ACP Scheme, their juniors were getting higher salaries than what they receive, directed the pay of senior was required to be stepped up from date they have started drawing lesser pay than their juniors due to upgradation under ACP Scheme. So also DB of this Tribunal in case of All India Postal Accountants Employees Association & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) declared para 8 of ACP Scheme ultra vires. We have already extracted relevant paragraphs of above precedents on the issue of stepping up of pay where junior were drawing more pay on account of upgradation under ACP Scheme.
50. We are of the considered view that applicant no.1 and his juniors are not in same post and same cadre and also not in same level of pay matrix and not entitled for stepping up of pay with effect from the date of higher salary awarded to Mrs. Vaijenthi Manohara, Mrs. Sharmila and Mr. Nirmal Kumar. Applicant no.2 and her juniors namely Mrs. Sharmila and Mr. Nirmal Kumar were in same cadre, same post - Superintendent in same level of pay scale. The pay anomaly is result of grant of IInd financial upgradation and in post of Superintendent since 24.02.2014, immediate junior Mrs. Sharmila. The applicant no.2 was getting less salary than junior Mrs. Sharmila w.e.f. 24.02.2014 till 03.06.2021 in same cadre and same post-Superintendent. The applicant no.2 is therefore entitled for stepping up of pay with effect from the date of higher pay awarded to junior Mrs. Sharmila w.e.f. 24.02.2014 till 03.06.2021 in post of Superintendent.
CONCLUSION
51. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the issue no. 1 & 2 are decided against the applicant no.1. Issue no.1 is decided against the applicant no.2 and Issue no.2 is decided in favour of applicant no.2. Accordingly as per findings supra, both the applicants are held not 36 O.A. No. 427/2016 entitled for PB-II GP Rs.5400/- to the post of Superintendent and PB-II GP Rs.6600/- to the post of Administrative Officer w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
52. Applicant no.1 is not entitled for stepping up of pay. However, Applicant no.2 is held entitled to award of stepping up of pay with effect from the date of higher pay was awarded to the immediate junior as per findings (supra) in the post of Superintendent.
53. Respondents are directed to step up pay of applicant no.2 only but not the pay scale. The pay scale of the applicant no.2 would remain the same as of date but pay would be fixed in appropriate stage and if there is no stage to match the pay drawn by the junior, the difference shall be treated as one of personal pay. The pay parity would be compared annually and accordingly arrears be paid to her.
54. Respondents are further directed to comply with the order in favour of applicant no.2, within a period of four months from the date of production/receipt of certified copy of this order and in given facts and circumstance of the case, applicant no.2 is not entitled to interest.
55. Resultantly, the present OA is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove and accordingly disposed of.
56. There shall be no order as to costs.
57. As a sequel thereof, pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
(Ajay Pratap Singh) (Dr. Chhabilendra Roul)
Member (J) Member (A)
/na/