Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Gulkesh Meena vs Revenue on 29 September, 2025
1 O.A.No. 200/00090/2025 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH JABALPUR Original Application No.200/00090/2025 Jabalpur, this Monday, the 29th day of September, 2025 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MS MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. Gulkesh Meena S/o Prabhu lal meena, DOB: 02-07-1990, Working as-Inspector of Income Tax, O/o DIT (I&CI) Bhopal, R/o- Type III/22, Chanakya Vihar, Kotra, Bhopal-462003 (MP).
2. Pradeep Yadav S/o Ramkishan, DOB: 02-05-1991, Working as- Office Superintendent, O/% JCIT(AU)-1(1)(1), Bhopal R/o- House No.88, Nandgaon Colony, Bagmugalia, Bhopal-462043 (MP).
3. Lalit Tandon S/o Late Pawan Tandon, DOB: 10-02-1992, Working as- Office Superintendent, O/o PCIT-1 Bhopal, R/o- Type III/69, Chanakya Vihar, Kotra, Bhopal- 462003 (MP).
4. Sunny Nain S/o Amrit Lal Nain, DOB: 07-06-1987, Working as- Office Superintendent, O/0 DIT(I&CI) BHOPAL, R/o- H.No.1706, Sec-14, Hisar, Haryana- 125001. Digitally signed by RAJUL NAMDEO Date: 2025.10.09 5. Nitin Jadhav S/o R. C. Jadhav, DOB: 18-04-1990, Working as- 11:47:15+05'30' Office Superintendent, O/o ITO-1(1), Bhopal, R/o- A-97, Tulsiparisar Phase-I, Near Awadhpuri, Piplani, BHEL, Bhopal- 462022 (MP).
6. Sachin Kumar Jain S/o Mahendra Kumar Jain, DOB: 03-10- 1992, Working as-Office Superintendent, Ovo PCTT-1, Indore, R/o-C-13, Income Tax Colony, Indore- 452001 (MP).
7. Amit Virha S/o Bhagwan Das Virha, DOB: 16-06-1988, Working as-Office Superintendent, O/o ITO(Inv.)/DDO, Indore, R/o- VF-16, Treasure Vihar, Bijalpur, Indore-452012 (MP).
8. Pawan kumar S/o Girdhari Singh, DOB: 12-06-1991, Working as-Office Superintendent, O/o JDIT(Inv), Jabalpur, R/o-C-118, Shubham Residency, Tilhari, Jabalpur-482020 (MP). Page 1 of 10 2
O.A.No. 200/00090/2025
9. Suresh Kumar Meena S/o Bhagirath Meena, DOB: 05-09- 1994, Working as- Inspector of Income Tax, O/o JCIT, Range-1, Ujjain, R/o- Quarter No.15, Income Tax Colony, Vednagar, Ujjain-456010 (MP).
10. Dharambir S/o Mangal Singh, DOB: 30-03-1988, Working as- Office Superintendent, O/o ITO (AU)-1(3)(5), Bilaspur (stationed at Gwalior), R/o- Mohalla-Kalu Pati, V.P.O- Khatkar, Tehsil- Narwana, Distt.- Jind, Haryana- 126115.
-Applicants (By Advocate -Shri Vijay Tripathi) Versus
1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, (Revenue) Ministry of Finance North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chairman Central Board of Direct Taxes North Block, New Delhi-110001.
3. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA) New Aaykar Bhawan, 47, Arera Hills, Narmadapuram Road, Bhopal 462001 (Μ.Ρ.).
- Respondents (By Advocate -Shri S.P.Singh) Digitally signed by RAJUL NAMDEO Date: 2025.10.09 11:47:15+05'30' O R D E R (ORAL) BY JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JM;
By way of the present original application, the Applicants are calling in question the legality, validity and propriety of the orders dated 19.12.2024, 23.12.2024, 27.12.2024, 03.01.2025 Annexure A/1 (colly.) whereby the claim of the applicants to remove anomaly of the pay has been rejected merely relying on Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department Page 2 of 10 3 O.A.No. 200/00090/2025 of Personnel and Training Office order dated 26.10.2018 Annexure A/2.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants are employees of the Respondent Department. A pay anomaly has arisen in the pay of the applicants as one of their junior Shri Nepali Meena is being given higher pay than the applicants from 06.12.2019 onwards. Feeling aggrieved by this pay anomaly the applicants have preferred individual representations. A copy of the gradation list showing that Shri Nepali Meena is junior to the applicants is being marked herewith as Annexure A/4 and a copy of the representations of the applicants is being collectively marked herewith as Annexure A/5 (colly.) As per Board's guideline, the employees below the 4600/- G.P. are eligible for two advance increment on passing departmental ITI exam and Digitally signed by RAJUL NAMDEO accordingly, the applicants had passed the departmental ITI exam and Date: 2025.10.09 11:47:15+05'30' were granted two advance increments on the post of Tax Assistant. However, Shri Nepali Meena has passed departmental ITI exam on 06.12.2019 (later than the applicants) and he was granted two increments on the post of Senior Tax Assistant on 06.12.2019 which has resulted in the pay anomaly. In response to the representations of the applicants Annexure A/5 (colly.), the Respondents have issued orders dated 19.12.2024, 23.12.2024, 27.12.2024, 03.01.2025 Annexure A/1 (colly.) whereby the claim of the applicants to remove Page 3 of 10 4 O.A.No. 200/00090/2025 anomaly of the pay has been rejected by relying upon the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training Office order dated 26.10.2018 (Annexure A/2).
3. The respondents have filed their reply wherein it is submitted that the applicants were recruited to the post of Tax Assistant through the Combined Graduate Level Examination 2014 in the pay band PB- 1 (Rs. 5200-20200) with Grade pay Rs. 2400-as per 6th CPC revised pay in Level 4 (as per CPCL The applicants qualified the Departmental Examination for Inspector of Income Tax (ITI)in the year 2017 while they were working in the post of Tax Assistant. Upon qualifying departmental exam for ITI, two advance increments were granted to the applicants and their pay was fixed accordingly. Digitally signed by RAJUL NAMDEO Subsequently, vide Order No. 06/2019 dated 18.02.2019, the Date: 2025.10.09 11:47:15+05'30' applicants were promoted to the post of Senior Tax Assistant in Level 6 (as per 7th CPC) ie, pre-revised PB-2 (Rs. 9300-34800) with Grade Pay Rs. 4200/- as per 6th CPC). Shri Nepali Meena was also recruited to the post of Tax Assistant through the Combined Graduate Level Examination 2014 and was placed junior to all the applicants in the gradation list. He was also promoted to the post of Senior Tax Assistant in Level 6 scale (as per 7th CPC) vide Order No. 06/2019 dated 18.02.2019 along with applicants. Consequent to the promotion Page 4 of 10 5 O.A.No. 200/00090/2025 of the applicants and Shri Nepali Meena, pay of all was fixed at the same level in Cell-1 of Level-6. Thereafter, Shri Nepali Meena qualified the Departmental Examination for Inspeetor of Income Tax (ITI) on 06.12.2019 while working in the post of Senior Tax Assistant. Upon qualifying departmental exam for ITI, two advance increments were granted to Shri Nepali Meena and his pay was fixed accordingly. Since two advance increments were given to Shri Nepali Meena in the higher level i.e., Level-6, resultantly, pay of Shri Nepali Meena was fixed higher to that of the applicants.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed therewith.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a similar order was passed in Original Application No. 774/2023 in the matters of Digitally signed by RAJUL NAMDEO Sandeep Patel & Ors. vs. The UOI & Ors., dated 04.07.2024 Date: 2025.10.09 11:47:15+05'30' wherein the same issued was decided by this Bench. The relevant portion of which reads thus:-
"5. From perusal of pleadings, it is clear that applicants were senior to respondents No.3 and 4 at all stages. They qualified the Income Tax Inspector Exam in the year 2017 when they were working as Tax Assistant and got two increments in the pay scale of Tax Assistant whereas respondents No.3 and 4 qualified I.T.I. Exam in the year 2018 when they were working as Senior Tax Assistant and got two increments in the pay scale of Senior Tax Assistant. Since the pay scale of Senior Tax Assistant is higher than the pay scale of Tax Assistant, hence pay of respondent's No. 3 and 4 has got higher than the applicants.
6. Fundamental Rule 22 deals with removal of such anomaly. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance has issued Page 5 of 10 6 O.A.No. 200/00090/2025 executive instructions dated 5.01.1989 and the same is reproduced under:-"INSTRUCTION NO.1804/1989
Dated 5.1.1989 Grant of advanced increment to officials in the income-tax department on passing the departmental examination for next higher grade Removal of anomaly in pay:-
In accordance with this Ministry's letter F.No.2(29)/Ad. VII/53 dated the 24th July, 1955, F.No.6/83/57-Ad.IX dated the 8th December, 1960 and F.No.A-26017/2/76-Ad.IX dated 16.2.1976, two advance increments are allowed to LDCs, UDCs, Inspectors, Stenographers, etc. in the Income tax Department on their passing the Departmental 9 Examination of the next higher grade. It has been brought to the notice of this Ministry that the officials who passed the departmental examination of the next higher grade before 1.1.86 and thereby got the benefit of the advance increments at a lower rate in the pre-revised scales, are drawing less, pay than their juniors who passed the examination on or after 1.1.86 and thereby drew the advance increments at a higher rate in revised scale of pay.
2.It has decided to remove anomaly in such cases by stepping up the pay of the senior official with reference to the pay of Digitally signed by RAJUL NAMDEO his junior, from the date of the date of grant of advance Date: 2025.10.09 increments to the latter. The orders refixing the pay of the 11:47:15+05'30' senior be issued in accordance with aforesaid decision under FR 27. He will draw his next increment from the date of drawal of increment by the junior with reference to whom the stepping up of pay has been allowed. The arrears of pay will be drawn accordingly.
3.This sanction issues with the concurrence of the Department of Personnel & Training, A.R. Estt (Pay) and the Department of Expenditure vide Dy. Nos. 327/88/Pay 1 dated 7.4.88 and 2117/Estt/888 dated 9.5.88, respectively.
4. They may be brought to the notice of all officers working in your region.
(F.No.A26017/70/87-Ad.IX dated 5-1-1989 from Central Board of Direct Taxes)"
Page 6 of 107
O.A.No. 200/00090/2025
7. In the case of Gautam Kumar (supra), in identical case, CAT Bangalore Bench has allowed the O.A. vide order dated 22.03.2019 which was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 49498 of 2019, which was allowed by the Hon'ble High Court. In this case also, advance increments were given to the applicants after passing of the Income Tax Inspector Exam. Rate of increment granted to applicants in the year 2017 was different from the rate of increment granted to juniors in the year 2018. Hon'ble High Court after following Fundamental Rule 22 and relying on paragraph 15 of the judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 5602/2013 (State of Karnataka and another Vs. Mohammed Ilyas, passed the following orders:-
"11. The learned counsel for Union of India has placed reliance on the judgment delivered in W.A.No.5602/2013 (State of Karnataka and another v/s Mohammed Ilyas). This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment and paragraph 15 of the said judgment reads as under:-
"15. The particulars of the pay drawn by the respondent and Sri. Karunakaran are as hereunder:-
Sri Mohammaed Illyas Sri K. Karunakaran
Date Basic pay Date Basic Pay
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Digitally signed by
RAJUL NAMDEO
Date: 2025.10.09
01.04.74 140.00 Annual 01.06.74 140.00 Annual Increment
11:47:15+05'30' increment
18.10.74 156.00 Two Advance
Increment for
graduation
01.04.75 164.00 Annual 01.06.75 148.00 Annual Increment
increment
01.04.76 172.00 Annual 01.06.76 156.00 Annual Increment
Increment
01.01.77 500.00 Revised Scale01.01.77 480.00 Revised scale 1977
1977
01.06.77 500.00 Annual Increment
two advance
29.11.77 55.00 increments for
proficiency in
Page 7 of 10
8
O.A.No. 200/00090/2025
shorthand
01.01.78 525.00 Annual 01.06.78 575.00 Annual Increment
Increment
01.01.79 550.00 Annual 01.06.78 600.00 Annual Increment
Increment
With reference to the aforesaid pay particulars of the respondent and Sri. Karunakaran, it is evident that the respondent is senior and he was drawing higher pay than that of Sri. K. Karunakaran till 29.11.1977. The respondent was granted two advance increments for acquiring B.A., graduation qualification w.e.f. 18.10.1974 in terms of the G.O. No. FD 73 SRP (1) 69 dated 18.2.1970. He was drawing basic pay of Rs.172/- in the pre- revised scale as on 1.1.1977. In the case of Sri. Karunakaran, without there being benefit of any advance or additional increment he was in the basic of Rs.156/- in the pre-revised scale as on 1.1.1977. In view of the Karnataka Civil Service(Revised Pay) Rules, 1977, the pay of the respondent who was drawing the basic pay of Rs.172/- was fixed at the stage of Rs.500/- as on 1.1.1977 on the other hand, Sri. Karunakaran who was drawing a basic pay of Rs.156/- was fixed at Rs.480/-. In view of the G.O. No.EV 14 SRP (1) 77 dated 24.5.1977 for acquiring the qualification of proficiency in Shorthand two advance increments is permissible. With Digitally signed by RAJUL NAMDEO reference to the said Government Order read with acquisition of Date: 2025.10.09 11:47:15+05'30' proficiency in shorthand qualification by Sri. Karunakaran on 29.11.1977 two advance increments were granted, consequently pay of Sri. Karunakaran was enhanced from Rs.480/- to Rs.550/- (annual increment was granted as on 1.6.1977 by which the pay was enhanced from Rs.480/- to Rs.500/- + two advance increments). In view of the aforesaid circumstances read with Government orders dated 18.2.1970 and 24.05.1977 the respondent has not made out a case so as to step up his pay on par with Sri. Karunakar."
12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid judgment does not help petitioner in any manner and it is distinguishable on facts.
13. Resultantly, no case for interference is made out in the matter.
Writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to costs. " Page 8 of 10 9
O.A.No. 200/00090/2025
8.Controversy involved in the present case is similar to the case of Gautam Kumar Vs. UOI (supra). In the instant case, applicants were senior to respondents No. 3 and 4 at all stages. They qualified the Income Tax Inspector Exam in the year 2017 when they were Tax Assistant whereas respondents No. 3 and 4 qualified I.T.I. Exam in the year 2018 when they were Senior Tax Assistants. Applicants got two increments in the pay scale of Tax Assistant whereas respondent No.3 and 4 got two advance increment in the pay scale of Senior Tax Assistant. Since the pay scale of Senior Tax Assistant is higher than the pay scale of Tax Assistant, hence pay of respondents No.3 and 4 has got higher salary than the applicants. On representation of the applicants, but nothing was done by the respondents. Thus, the Court is of the opinion that aforesaid view taken by the court in the case of Gautam Kumar and others Vs. UOI (supra) and other cases are fully applicable to the case of the applicants and O.A. deserves to be allowed.
9. Accordingly, O.A. is allowed. Respondents are directed to re- fix the salary of the applicants at par with the respondent's No. 3 and 4 with all consequential benefits. The above direction shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
10. There shall be no order as to costs."
6. Controversy involved in the present case is similar to the case Digitally signed by RAJUL NAMDEO Date: 2025.10.09 of Sandeep Patel (Supra). In the instant case, the applicants qualified 11:47:15+05'30' the departmental Exam in the year 2018 and they were not granted two advance increments on passing the departmental I.T.I. Exam in the year 2018 when they were Senior Tax Assistants. Applicants got two increments in the pay scale of Tax Assistant whereas junior to applicants got two advance increment in the pay scale of Senior Tax Assistant. Since the pay scale of Senior Tax Assistant is higher than the pay scale of Tax Assistant, hence pay of juniors to applicants got higher than the applicants. Thus, the Court is of the opinion that Page 9 of 10 10 O.A.No. 200/00090/2025 aforesaid view taken by the court in the case of Sandeep Patel (Supra) case is fully applicable to the case of the applicants and O.A. deserves to be allowed.
7. Accordingly, O.A. is allowed. Respondents are directed to re- fix the salary of the applicants at par with the juniors with all consequential benefits. The above direction shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. As a sequel thereof, pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.
(Mallika Arya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
Digitally signed by
RAJUL NAMDEO
Date: 2025.10.09
11:47:15+05'30'
rajul
Page 10 of 10