Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Trilok Chand vs M/O Urban Development on 8 January, 2024
1 OA No. 9/2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
OA No.9/2018
Order reserved on: 09.12.2023
Order pronounced on: 08.01.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
1. Mr. Trilok Chand,
S/o Shri, Ved Prakash,
Age 63 years, R/o Flat No. 132,
Lok Nayak Appt., Sector -9,
Rohini, Delhi - 110085
2. Mr. K.K. Nayyar,
S/o Shri. M.P. Nayyar,
Aged 63 years, R/o. C-35,
Sector - 41, Noida, U.P.
3. Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta,
S/o Late Tara Chand Gupta,
Aged 61 years, R/o. Flat No.3,
ESS NDMC, Hanuman Road,
New Delhi - 110001
4. Mr. Navin Kamal Suri,
S/o Shri. Late K.L. Suri,
Aged 61 years, R/o. 4/21-A,
Vikram Vihar, Lajpat Nagar IV,
New Delhi - 110024
5. Mr. Vijay Manchanda,
S/o Late D.L.Manchanda,
Aged 67 years, R/o. A-5/267,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi - 110063.
6. Mr. Prabhu Dyal,
S/o Late Shri Ganga Sahai,
Aged 63 years,
r/o 524, Nai Basti,
Kishan Ganj,
Delhi - 110007
7. Mr. Suresh Chand Jain,
S/o R. Dayal, Aged 58 years,
2 OA No. 9/2018
R/o NP. 93B, Pitampura,
Delhi - 110088
8. Mr. T.N.Khambra,
S/o Late Amarnath Khambra,
Aged 64 years, R/o H.No. 558,
Sector -1, Vaishali,
Ghaziabad- 201010
9. Mr. Anil Kumar Kashyap,
S/o Shri Jainarayan Kashyap,
Aged 58 years, R/o. C- 960,
Arjun Nagar, Kotla Mubarkpur,
New Delhi - 110003.
10. Mr. Bhavarsingh,
s/o Late Shri. Babulal,
Aged 59 years, R/o H.No. 255,
Sector - 31, Faridabad- 121003.
11. Mr. Vijay Kumar Goel,
S/o Shri. Mulkh Raj Goel,
Aged 58 years, R/o B- 100,
Parijat Apartment, Pitampura,
West Enclave, New Delhi - 110034.
12. B.C. Dhiman,
S/o Late Bakshi Ram,
Aged 60 years, R/o. J-1009,
Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana.
....Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. Girish Kumar and Mr. Alex Joseph)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through its Director General,
Ministry of Urban Development,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi
2. NBCC India Ltd.
(Formerly known as National Building Construction
Corporation Ltd.,)
Through its CMD,
NBCC Bhawan, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi.
... Respondents
3 OA No. 9/2018
(By Advocate: Mr. Gudipati G. Kashyap and
Mr. Brijesh Verma, DGM, Depttl.
representative)
ORDER
By Hon'ble Manish Garg, Member (J) In the present OA, the applicant is seeking following reliefs:
"(i) Quash speaking order dated 29.09.2017 issued by Respondent No.2.
(ii) Direct the respondents to step up the pay of the applicants with their juniors from the date their juniors started drawing higher pay along with all consequential benefits such as DA, HRA, CCA, other perks and allowances, leave encashment, gratuity and other benefits if any.
(iii) Direct respondents to pay interest to applicants on their arrears of pay and other consequential benefits @ 12% per annum for the period from the said amount become due (i.e. the day applicants started drawing lesser salary than juniors) till the date of making payments to applicants.
(iv) Pass any other order(s) as it may deem fit to this Hon'ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the learned counsel for the applicants are that the applicants, 11 in number, are serving/retired employees of the National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. (NBCC). 2.1 The Board of Directors of NBCC, respondent no.2, decided that all employees on Central Dearness Allowance (CDA) pattern pay structure, on their promotion/selection to a higher post through internal selection process shall be brought on Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) scale of pay 4 OA No. 9/2018 w.e.f. 20.05.2006 onwards. The relevant part of the decision taken by the Management reads:
"Pay may be first fixed from Central Dearness Allowance (CDA) pay scales on the lower post to Central Dearness Allowance (CDA) pay scales in the promoted post and thereafter the same may be protected in the corresponding Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) scales of the promoted post."
2.2 The employees who were promoted after 01.01.2006, i.e., on 20.05.2006 in DPC (hereinafter referred to as the first set of employees), their pay was firstly fixed in the corresponding Central Dearness Allowance (CDA) pay scales and promoted to the next higher scale of CDA subsequently converted into IDA pattern pay at the relevant time, i.e., as per scale of pay applicable as on 01.01.1997. 2.3 As per the policy of Government, pay scales of employees are revised after 10 years. Thus CDA pay scales were revised w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and IDA pay scales were revised from 01.01.2007. As per the NBCC report, both the pay patterns were approved by Government in 2008 and Board also accorded its approval for implementation of pay scale. Accordingly, the employees who were promoted w.e.f. 20.05.2006 their pay was fixed in the revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and revised pay was protected and fixed in the revised IDA pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2007. It is pointed out that when pay scale in CDA pattern has been revised w.e.f. 5 OA No. 9/2018 01.01.2006 pay of employees has to be fixed on 20.05.2006 in CDA pay scales first, followed by protection of revised pay in the revised pay scale implemented w.e.f. 01.01.2007. The pay of all the employees has been fixed as per the formula approved by Chairman-cum-Managing Director on Note dated 31.07.2008. As a result of the said decision, pay of employees promoted after 20.05.2006 onwards got fixed at higher level with reference to pay of senior employees who were promoted prior to 20.05.2006, i.e., first set of employees and the said anomaly in pay fixation has been an admitted fact now.
2.4 The said anomaly was noticed by the Management of NBCC way back in the year 2009 and on 30.09.2009 a meeting in this regard was held between DGM (Finance), DGM (P&A), DM (P&A) wherein it was observed that Committee appointed for scrutinizing the cases of anomalies due to implementation of recommendations of 6th Pay Commission for CDA pay structure and 2nd Pay Revision Committee for IDA structure had examined the anomalies including the anomalies which had arisen due to promotion of some of the employees on 20.05.2006. It was opined that with respect to anomaly in cases of those employees who were promoted w.e.f. 20.05.2006 are at advantage as compared to their counterparts promoted earlier to 20.05.2006 or after 6 OA No. 9/2018 01.01.2007. It was categorically pointed out in the said meeting that the pay of senior and juniors of said employees be stepped up at par with the pay of employees promoted on 20.05.2006.
2.5 Reference in this regard is drawn to a decision of this Tribunal in Neyazi & Others v. Union of India & Ors., TA No.1227/2009, decided on 08.09.2011, where an identical issue had been authoritatively settled by this Tribunal way back. In the said case also the juniors in M/s Hindustan Prefab Ltd. were getting higher pay than their seniors on account of conversion from CDA pay scales to IDA pay scales. This Tribunal, however, vide judgment dated 08.09.2011 allowed the application filed by employees/seniors by holding that once their juniors pay was fixed in the IDA pattern at the higher level than their seniors, it is but appropriate that the employer on their own to recognize the pay anomaly in order to step up the senior's pay to that level.
2.6 It is further pointed out that way back in the year 2009 some other employees of NBCC Executive Forum who were similarly drawing lower basic pay than their juniors on account of identical anomaly which had occurred due to promotion of their juniors on 20.05.2006, approached Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which was transferred to this Tribunal and numbered as TA No.1287/2009 along with TA 7 OA No. 9/2018 No.1380/2009. This Tribunal vide its order dated 14.09.2011 directed NBCC to adhere to its decision in Neyazi & Ors. (supra) by following the principle of service law that a junior employee cannot draw more pay than his senior. The relevant part of the order reads:
"3. Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties, we direct that if the representation complaining the anomaly in their pay is filed by the Applicants, the respondents would deal with the matter after ascertaining the facts in the context of our judgment in TA No.1227/2009 and pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and definitely within a period of nine weeks from today. In case, the grievance of the applicants may still survive, they will be at liberty to file fresh application."
2.7 The NBCC, thereafter submitted an undertaking before this Tribunal seeking extension of six months to complete entire process on the plea of detailed review of matter with reference to practice followed by other PSUs. Despite that no decision was taken by the NBCC.
2.8 Aggrieved, the applicants filed OA No.1733/2017 - Trilok Chand & Others v. Union of India & Another, before this Tribunal, which was disposed of vide order dated 17.05.2017. The relevant part of the order reads:
"6. In the circumstances, the O.A. is disposed of without going into the merits of the case, with a direction to the respondents to decide the Annexure A/7 (Colly) representations of the applicants by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law. No costs."8 OA No. 9/2018
2.9 In compliance, the respondents disposed of the representation of the applicants, whereby they categorically admit existence of anomalies and thus fully agreed with the grievance of the applicants, however, they failed to redress their grievance of anomaly stating that no guidelines have been issued from DoP&T/DPE regarding stepping up of the pay of senior employees at par with their junior employees) while converting the pay of an employee from CDA pattern to IDA pattern.
2.10 Thereafter applicants also filed CP No.615/2017 in OA No.1733/2017, which was disposed of by this Tribunal observing that the petitioners are at liberty to question the order dated 29.09.2017, in accordance with law." 2.11 Hence, the OA.
3. The learned counsel has also submitted his written arguments wherein he has filed a chart explaining the anomaly of applicants against their juniors.
4. Pursuant to the notices issued, the respondents entered appearance and filed their reply, thereby vehemently denying the claim of the applicants. It is submitted that the applicants have preferred the present OA assailing the reasoned and speaking order dated 29.09.2017, passed by the Chief General Manager (HRM) in compliance of order 9 OA No. 9/2018 dated 17.05.2017 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.1733/2017. It is alleged by the applicants that they are the victims of pay anomaly which occurred due to the conversion from CDA pay scale to IDA pay scale. 4.1 It is submitted that the present OA is nothing but misuse and abuse of law as the same is filed by the applicants by suppressing material facts and documents. The applicants are trying to present their case in a concocted manner so as to obtain favourable orders from this Tribunal. They are guilty of suppression of material facts and the OA needs to be dismissed at the threshold on this ground alone. 4.2 However, by way of preliminary submissions/objections it is submitted that the answering respondent, since its inception, was following Central Government pay scales with CDA pattern. Department of Public Enterprises (DPE) vide OM dated 22.04.1991 informed to all administrative Ministries/Departments of Govt. of India the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 03.05.1990, i.e., all employees appointed on or after 01.01.1989 in Public Sector Enterprises following CDA pattern are deemed to have been appointed on the IDA pattern and related scales of pay. Model scales of pay evolved, both for the unionised staff/non-unionised Supervisors and Executives, a statement containing the 10 OA No. 9/2018 scales of pay as well as the IDA admissible as on 01.01.1989 and on subsequent dates was enclosed with the OM. The pre-revised scales of pay under the 3rd CPC DA pattern were also indicated in the statement.
4.3 In reference to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and DPE, Board of Directors of respondent company in its 348th and 350th meetings held on 24.06.2005 and September, 2005 respectively decided that all its employees on CDA pattern pay structure, on their promotion henceforth to a higher post or selection to a higher post through internal selection process shall be brought on IDA pattern pay structure and place in IDA scale of pay. In order to effect conversion from CDA pattern pay structure to IDA pattern pay structure, pay of employees of answering respondent company who were promoted after 01.01.2006, i.e., on 20.05.2006 in DPC was firstly fixed in the corresponding CDA pay scales and then promoted to the next higher scale of CDA pattern pay structure. Subsequently, they were converted into IDA pattern pay structure as per scale of pay applicable to them as on 01.01.1997. However, due to the revision and implementation of the 6th Pay Commission in the CDA pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.2006, the first set of employees got the benefit of pay revision of CDA pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.2006 by virtue of their working in CDA 11 OA No. 9/2018 pattern of pay on 01.01.2006. Subsequently, they also further got the benefit of pay revision and implementation of 2nd Pay Revision Committee in the IDA pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.2007 as they were converted into IDA pattern of pay on their promotion to the next higher post after 01.01.2006. 4.4 The pay drawn by employees of respondent company under CDA pattern pay structure who were promoted in the year 2007 and brought under the IDA pattern pay scales from CDA pattern pay scales, was revised on account of revision w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and was further fixed in the revised IDA pattern pay scales as per 2nd Pay Revision Committee without any benefit. However, their employments (Pay + Grade Pay + Dearness Allowance) were protected while fixing their pay in the revised IDA pattern pay scale. Thus their pay in comparison to those who were promoted prior to 01.01.2007 is on the lower side. The alleged anomaly arises on account of manner the scale of pay under the CDA pattern and IDA pattern are structured, each having its own peculiarity. Moreover, the DoP&T had issued a circular dated 22.10.2010 wherein it was specified that the pay of the senior employees may be stepped up when juniors are drawing the same pay scale and are in the same designation and also on the same seniority list but in the present case the applicants were drawing different pay scales and were in different seniority list 12 OA No. 9/2018 and as such they cannot claim and are not entitled to any stepping up of their pay.
4.5 As per the directions given by this Tribunal in TA No.1287/2009 and 1380/2009, the order passed in the case of M.A. Neyazi & Ors. (supra) was examined with reference to circular dated 22.10.1990 issued by DoP&T by the answering respondent. On perusal of the said circular, it has been observed that the pay of the senior employees may be stepped up when juniors are drawing the same pay scale and are in the same designation and also on the same seniority list. Therefore, the said case, heavily relied upon by the applicants claiming parity, is not applicable in the present case, as the applicants were drawing different pay scales and were in different seniority list. The alleged anomalies in the case of applicants are on account of different pay structures under the CDA pattern and IDA pattern, each having its own peculiarity. Learned counsel for the respondents also produced a table giving a comparison of Managerial and Executive Personnel and submits that according to this table the applicants' grievance of discriminatory treatment gets settled since the persons shown to be drawing higher pay and allowances had assumed the said position prior to the applicants.
13 OA No. 9/20184.6 In view of the above, it is submitted that the present OA is devoid of any merit, as there exists no pay anomaly.
5. Analysis:
5.1 The applicants are aggrieved that on account of the shift of their pay structure from Central Dearness Allowance (CDA) to Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) serious anomalies in the pay and the emoluments they are drawing have arisen resulting in their juniors getting higher pay and emoluments than them. The issue has been agitated in earlier rounds of litigation and pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal, the respondents, after considering the representations and grievances of the applicants, have passed an order dated 20.09.2017 which is impugned in the present Original Application.
5.2 Learned counsel for the applicants strongly contest the averment made in the present OA that the anomalies which have resulted in the shortfall of emoluments of the applicants have been made good by way of granting Performance Related Pay (PRP) to the applicants. 5.3 Learned counsel for the respondents, at this stage, submits that apart from PRP, there are certain other elements of perquisites which have been granted to the applicants. 14 OA No. 9/2018 5.4 Learned counsel for the applicants draws attention to a document placed at page-24 onwards (Annexure A-13) to the rejoinder affidavit. The said document is a consolidated seniority list of the different cadres in NBCC. Through this document learned counsel establishes that the grievance of the applicants with respect to their pay anomaly is in comparison with the officials who belong to their cadre only and hence according to the learned counsel, the doubt expressed by us vide order dated 19.05.2023 should get settled.
5.5 We have perused the said document. While appreciating the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the applicants, we find that during the course of the photo copying, some portions of the said document are not legible.
Further, the document consists of a large number of categories and we find that the applicants would fall probably in some different categories.
5.6 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents produces a table giving a comparison of Managerial and Executive personnel and submits that according to this table the applicants' grievance of discriminatory treatment gets settled since the persons shown to be drawing higher pay and allowances had assumed the said position prior to them. 15 OA No. 9/2018 5.7 However, on the issue of similarity of the cadre or not, we directed the respondents to clarify the position. For better appreciation of the issue involved, we also directed the learned counsel for the respondents to ensure the presence of an official from the department, who is well conversant with administrative matters and knows about the issue at hand. 5.8 At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents corrects the arguments put forth on the last date of hearing vide which learned counsel had contested the claim of the applicants on the ground that they do not belong to the same cadre as the other persons against whom they are seeking parity. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no similarity in the cadre of the applicants with the others and hence, their claim in the OA was misplaced. However, the learned counsel sought adjournment to seek greater clarity on the issue and he admits that he was not properly informed of the situation and, in fact, the cadres are similar. Assisted by Mr. Brijesh Verma, DGM, he further clarifies that even though the cadres may be the same, the scale of pay and the designations are different. He further elaborates that one of the factors determining eligibility for promotion is length of service and in the instant case, the date of joining is also different, therefore, the issue of parity has to be tested with respect to the number of years of service rendered. He goes on 16 OA No. 9/2018 to state that qualifying services is only one of the criteria for consideration for promotion; the persons are required to meet other criteria also as set forth in the relevant rules including necessary qualifications and record of their work and conduct.
5.9 Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the chart given by the applicants to substantiate that the juniors, who were drawing lesser pay, have been, at a later date, fixed at a higher pay, does not give the correct picture. The so called juniors mentioned in the said chart are T N Mehra, Satya Prakash, S C Sarkar, Hira Lal and others. Learned counsel, on instructions from the Officer presents in Court, clarifies that all these persons held different designations and a different scale of pay. However, to a specific query put by us, it is confirmed by the learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions from the Officer presents in Court, that while designation and scale of pay are different, the seniority list in the cadre is common. Learned counsel for the respondents concludes his argument by drawing attention to the provisions of FR 22(1) (a)(1), vehemently arguing that to avail the benefit of stepping up of pay in terms of the provisions of this Rule not only should the person belong to the same cadre, but should also be holding the same post and scale of pay. He reiterates that in the 17 OA No. 9/2018 instant matter even if the cadre is same, the post and the scale of pay are not.
5.10 Learned counsel for the applicants draws attention to a chart he has placed on page 106 (Annexure A-11), clearly indicating in tabular form the basic pay of the applicants compared to the basic pay drawn by their juniors. We have seen the said chart/table but find that the said table only mentions the basic pay without the element of other allowances including PRP which may have been sanctioned in favour of the applicants. Accordingly, learned counsel for the applicants was advised to assist us in the matter by producing the fresh table giving a comparative statement of the salary and emoluments drawn by the applicants in comparison to their juniors clearly indicating the basic pay, other allowances, the elements of perquisites and the PRP referred to in the impugned order.
5.11 For the sake of clarity, the comparative statement filed by the learned counsel for the applicants is reproduced below:
S. E Code Name Basic Pay Basic Pay Date of DA as HRA as Perks PRP% N and of of arising of on 5.4. on 5.4. % as (Duri o number applicant applicant anomaly 2010 2010 on ng of as on after 5.4. 2011-
applicant 31.12.2005 arising of 2010 12)
anomaly
1 E1706 Trilok Rs.11625/- Rs.33260/- 05.03.2009 34.80% 30% 45% 40%
Chand
(Retired)
2 E3578 KK Nayar Rs.12600/- Rs.37510/- 05.03.2009 34.80% 30% 45% 40%
(Retired)
3 E1725 Navin Rs.11625/- Rs.33600/- 05.03.2009 34.80% 30% 45% 40%
Kamal
Suri
(Retired)
4 E1257 Vijay Rs.11625/- Rs.34270/- 01.03.2009 34.80% 30% 45% 40%
Manchan
da
(Retired)
5 E1734 Ashok Rs.12925/- Rs.37630/- 05.03.2009 34.80% 30% 45% 40%
18 OA No. 9/2018
Kumar
Gupta
(Retired)
6 E3818 Prabhu Rs.13250/- Rs.37220/- 01.03.2008 34.80% 30% 45% 40%
Dayal
(Retired)
7 E1857 T.N. Rs.13250/- Rs.37220/- 01.03.2008 34.80% 30% 45% 40%
Khambra
(Retired)
8 E1868 C.Radhak Rs.13250/- Rs.39010/- 05.04.2010 34.80% 30% 45% 40%
rishnaw
(Retired)
9 E3283 Anill Rs.13250/- Rs.37220/- 01.03.2008 34.80% 30% 45% 40%
Kashyap
(Serving)
10 E3724 Bhanwar Rs.13250/- Rs.36760/- 01.03.2008 34.80% 30% 45% 40%
Singh
(Serving)
11 E4012 V.K.Goel Rs.13250/- Rs.37300/- 01.03.2008 34.80% 30% 45% 40%
(Serving)
S. E Code Name of Basic Pay Basic Pay Date of DA as HRA as Perks PRP%
N junior of junior as of junior arising of on 5.4. on 5.4. % as (Duri
o drawing on after anomaly 2010 2010 on ng
higher 31.12.2005 arising of 5.4. 2011-
pay than anomaly 2010 12)
applicant
1 E1367 TN Mehra Rs.11300/- Rs.37060/- 05.03.2009 34.80% 30% 45% 40%
2 E3721 Satya Rs.12600/- Rs.41190/- 05.03.2009 34.80% 30% 45% 40%
Prakash
3 E1367 TN Mehra Rs.11300/- Rs.37060/- 05.03.2009 34.80% 30% 45% 40%
4 E1367 TN Mehra Rs.11300/- Rs.37060/- 05.03.2009 34.80% 30% 45% 40%
5 E3721 Satya Rs.12600/- Rs.41190/- 05.03.2009 34.80% 30% 45% 40%
Prakash
6 E2303 S.C.Sark Rs.12925/- Rs.39990/- 01.03.2008 34.80% 30% 45% 40%
ar
7 E5057 Hira Lal Rs.12925/- Rs.39990/- 01.03.2008 34.80% 30% 45% 40%
8 E5764 Attar Rs.12600/- Rs.41490/- 05.04.2010 34.80% 30% 45% 40%
Singh
9 E5057 Hira Lal Rs.12925/- Rs.39990/- 01.03.2008 34.80% 30% 45% 40%
10 E5057 Hira Lal Rs.12925/- Rs.39990/- 01.03.2008 34.80% 30% 45% 40%
11 E5057 Hira Lal Rs.12925/- Rs.39990/- 01.03.2008 34.80% 30% 45% 40%
5.12 From the above analysis, we find that it is an undisputed fact that the applicants belong to the same cadre against which they are seeking parity. There is no denial of the fact that T.N. Mehra and others are not juniors to the applicants and that their seniority list is distinct and operated separately. It is the nomenclature/designation which is sought to be differentiated; otherwise the respondents have not been able to make out a case that there is a marked distinction qua the post(s). More importantly, it is also undisputed that there cannot be any special treatment 19 OA No. 9/2018 leading to unjustifiable grant of higher pay scale belonging to the persons in the same cadre. Neither, the respondents have made out any intelligible differentia nor there is any nexus with the object sought to be achieved which would reflect that the applicants are not entitled to pay parity in the same cadre. In absence of any specific Rule, the officers cannot be discriminated qua the pay parity in the same cadre qua juniors, even though designation is different as nomenclature of posts is not the sole determinative factor. It is well established that the classification can be based on some qualities or characteristics of persons grouped together and not in otherwise who are left out. The respondents have not been able to make out a case on the basis of classification which has some distinctive characteristics of the persons which cannot be grouped together in the same cadre. Hence, the persons in the same cadre and hierarchy cannot be differentiated in the matter of pay parity. The present case is not a case of pay parity but stepping up of the pay of senior employees at par with their junior employees. Furthermore, merely because no guidelines have been issued from DoP&T/DPE regarding stepping up of the pay of senior employees at par with their junior employees) while converting the pay of an employee from CDA pattern to IDA pattern cannot be a valid justification to deny the claim. 20 OA No. 9/2018
6. Conclusion:
In view of the above, the present OA deserves to be allowed. Impugned speaking order dated 29.09.2017 issued by respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to step up the pay of the applicants with their juniors from the date of their drawing higher pay on notional basis. The applicants shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits on their re-fixation of pay/pension. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not grant any interest on payment of arrears of difference in pay and allowances. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(Manish Garg) (Tarun Shridhar) Member (J) Member (A) 'SD'