Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Samrat Guha vs Revenue on 13 March, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
O.A.No.350/710/2024
M.A.No.350/562/2024
Heard on : 05.02.2026
Order on : 13.03.2026
Coram: Hon'ble Smt. Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member
1. Samrat Guha
2. Dipanjan Das
3. SintuSaha
4. DebadyutiHazra
5. Shambhu Kumar Sen
6. Sanjib Kumar Sau
7. SoumajitDatta
8. SumanDebnath
9. PalashBasu
10.Pradip Kumar Bhar
11.Rama Mitra
12.Partha Mukherjee
13.TultulDey
14.Tapan Kumar Adak
15.SabyasachiSadhukhan
16.Paromita Bhattacharya
17.Madhumita Kumar (Bag)
...............Applicants
- VERSUS -
1. Union of India through the Secretary
to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue, North Block,
New Delhi - 110001;
2. The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi - 110001;
3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income
Tax,West Bengal & Sikkim, P-7, Chowringhee
square, AayakarBhawan, Kolkata -700069.
...............Respondents
Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
DN: C=IN, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY, O=Personal, ST=West Bengal, postalCode=
SOMA 700114, pseudonym=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, serialNumber=
f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc,
telephoneNumber=
248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, title=6794
BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.03.13 17:28:03+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
2
For the Applicant : Mr. S.K. Datta, Counsel
For the Respondents: Ms. P. Goswami, Counsel
ORDER
Hon'ble UrmitaDatta (Sen), Judicial Member The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"a) An order directing the respondents to step up the pay of the applicants on par with their respective juniors as cited in their representations from the dates their respective juniors started drawing higher pay than that of the applicants with all consequential monetary benefits including arrears;
b) An order directing the respondents to produce/cause production of all relevant records;
c) Any other order or further order/orders as to this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper."
2. The applicants have also filed M.A.No.350/562/2024 seeking permission of this Tribunal to move this O.A. jointly under Rule 4(5)(a) of C.A.T.(Procedure) Rules, 1987. The M.A. is allowed.
3. Brief facts of the case tersely put in this O.A. are as under:-
a) The applicants are working under the respondents on different capacities such as Senior Tax Assistant, Office Superintendent, Inspector of Income Tax in different offices of Income Tax in Kolkata region. According to the applicants, they were granted two advance increments on qualifying departmental examinations for the posts of Inspector of Income Tax and Income Tax Officer as per the guidelines followed in the department while they were working in the Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- in pay band of Rs.5200-20200/- i.e. PB-1.
The rate of such increment was 3% of aggregate of pay in pay band Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY DN: C=IN, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY, O=Personal, ST=West Bengal, postalCode= SOMA 700114, pseudonym=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, serialNumber= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, telephoneNumber= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, title=6794 BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.13 17:28:03+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 3 plus Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- as on the date of passing the examination.
b) Some of the juniors of the applicant who could not pass the said examination along with the applicants in this O.A. and had cleared the same departmental examination later while working in the Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- in Pay Band of Rs.9,300-34,800 i.e. PB-2, got two advance increments in higher rate after implementation of 7th CPC.
As a result of which, the juniors of the applicants started drawing higher pay than that of the applicants although they were juniors in the seniority list of feeder cadre. Aggrieved by such anomaly in pay, the applicants have approached this Tribunal seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
4. The respondents have filed written reply refuting the claim of the applicants. They have taken the following grounds in their reply:-
a) The issue of anomaly relating to senior Government employees drawing less pay than that of their juniors due to application of provisions of FR 22(1)(a)(1) was considered by the authorities on merits by allowing stepping up of pay of the seniors to bring it at par with that of the juniors in accordance with the guidelines scattered in various OMs and thereafter a consolidated guidelines was issued in this matter vide Office Memorandum dated 26.10.2018 (Annexure R/1), wherein it has been stated as under:-
"2. Consequent upon implementation of CCS(RP)Rules, 2016, the President is pleased to decide the following:
(1) 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 Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY DN: C=IN, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY, O=Personal, ST=West Bengal, postalCode= SOMA 700114, pseudonym=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, serialNumber= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, telephoneNumber= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, title=6794 BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.13 17:28:03+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 4 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 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 Extra Ordinary 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-à-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;Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
DN: C=IN, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY, O=Personal, ST=West Bengal, postalCode= SOMA 700114, pseudonym=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, serialNumber= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, telephoneNumber= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, title=6794 BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.13 17:28:03+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 5
(e) If a senior is appointed later than the junior in the lower post itself whereby she 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 drawsl 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 FR22(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(1)(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.
(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 FR22(1)(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."
Referring to Para 2(i)(c ) of the above O.M. read with Rule 13 of CCS(RP/Rules, 2016, the respondents have submitted that in a case where the junior officer was drawing more pay in the existing pay structure than that of the senior by virtue of any advance increments granted to him, the provisions of FR 22(1)(a)(1) would not be invoked to step up the pay of the senior.
b) In this regard, The Under Secretary Ad IX, CBDT, Department of Revenue vide it's letter dated 09/08/2021 issued from F. No: Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
DN: C=IN, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY, O=Personal, ST=West Bengal, postalCode= SOMA 700114, pseudonym=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, serialNumber= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, telephoneNumber= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, title=6794 BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.13 17:28:03+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 6 A26017/04/2016-Ad IX has communicated the observation of the DoP&T on the same issue, the salient portion of which is reproduced below:
"The following two types of cases where pre-anomaly had arisen were taken up with the D/o Expenditure as well as DoP&T:
a. The anomaly has arisen due to grant of advance increment to seniors in the pre- revised pay scale whereas juniors in the revised pay scale/level on implementation of the recommendation of 6th and 7th CPC;
b. The second case of anomaly has arisen due to grant of advance increment in their lower grade to the seniors when they had passed departmental examination whereas juniors have been granted advance increments in the higher grade as they passed exam later. (Copy enclosed as Annexure 2);
c) DoP&T vide their note dated 01/07/2021 has rejected the proposal with the remarks that the matter has been considered in the light of the para 2 of the consolidated guidelines on stepping up of pay issued by this Department vide OM No. 4/3/2017-Estt. (Pay-I) dated 26/10/2018, which inter-alia provides the conditions for stepping up of pay. It has been stipulated therein that pay anomaly is direct result of the application of the provision of Fundamental Rule 20(I)(a) (1) read with Rule 13 of CCS (RP Rules, 2016). The instant case of pay anomaly, drawal of higher pay by junior(s) is attributable to grant of advance increments after passing of departmental examinations under different conditions. As such, the same does not constitute pay anomaly for stepping up of pay of senior(s) and the proposal of department of Revenue was not agreed to. Therefore, the O.A. is not maintainable under the Rules.Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
DN: C=IN, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY, O=Personal, ST=West Bengal, postalCode= SOMA 700114, pseudonym=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, serialNumber= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, telephoneNumber= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, title=6794 BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.13 17:28:03+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 7
5. The applicants have file a rejoinder reiterating the same as mentioned in the O.A.
6. At hearing, Learned Counsel for the applicants has submitted that identical issue regarding anomaly due to passing of departmental examination by juniors in the higher Grade Pay and Pay Band subsequent to seniors was decided by C.A.T, Bangalore Bench vide Order dated 22.03.2019 in O.A.No.170/50/2017, which was assailed in Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by the respondents by filing W.P.C.T. No.49498 of 2019 and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide judgment dated 23.02.2021 had dismissed the said W.P.C.T. Thus, the Order dated 22.03.2019 passed by C.A.T., Bangalore Bench had attained finalilty as it was implemented vide Memorandum dated 28.12.2021. Learned Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that same issue was also considered by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and order was passed in favour of the original applicant. Learned Counsel for the applicants has also stated that the applicants made representations to the authorities concerned praying for stepping up of pay at par with their juniors in view of the orders of Hon'ble High Court at Karnataka and also the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta. Their representations were forwarded to Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and vide letter dated 23.02.2024 (Annexure A/2) the applicants were informed that their applications for removal of anomaly in pay arising out of grant of increments on passing departmental examinations in different pay scales/levels of different CPCs or different grades would be processed expeditiously as soon as further instructions would be received from CBDT.
Thereafter no communication was made to the applicants in this regard.
7. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents. In the reply the respondents have stated that a letter was sent to CBDT, New Delhi on 02.02.2024 seeking clarification for extension of Hon'ble High Court's order of Karnataka and other High Courts' orders passed on this issue to similarly placed employees, who were Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY DN: C=IN, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY, O=Personal, ST=West Bengal, postalCode= SOMA 700114, pseudonym=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, serialNumber= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, telephoneNumber= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, title=6794 BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.13 17:28:03+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 8 not parties in those cases. It is further stated in the reply that a letter dated 31.05.2024 was received from ADIT, CMD-2, HRD, CBDT, New Delhi seeking details of such petitions to which a reply was sent to CBDT, New Delhi on 04.06.2024. The respondents have stated that a letter dated 05.08.2024 was received from Under Secretary V&L-II enclosing the instruction of DOPT vide which it was advised that the decision of Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta may be implemented 'in personam' and not to be treated as precedent in other similar cases, hence, referred judgments of Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta cannot be implemented in respect of applicants in this O.A.
8. Heard Learned Counsel for both sides and perused the pleadings and documents placed on record.
9. It is noted that a consolidated guidelines has been issued by the DoP&T regarding Stepping up of pay vide Office Memorandum dated 26.10.2018 (Annexure R/1), which has already been reproduced above. In Para 2 of the said Office Memorandum, it has been clearly stated that consequent upon implementation of CCS(RP)Rules, 2016, the President was pleased to decide the matter of stepping up of pay in case of junior and senior Government servants and as per approval of the President, the DoP&T had tried 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. In this regard, it has been mentioned in Para 2 of the O.M. dated 26.10.2018 that 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 certain conditions. The condition as mentioned in Para 2(c) clearly mentions that the Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY DN: C=IN, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY, O=Personal, ST=West Bengal, postalCode= SOMA 700114, pseudonym=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, serialNumber= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, telephoneNumber= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, title=6794 BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.13 17:28:03+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 9 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 and 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 provisions of this sub-rule should not be invoked to step up the pay of the senior officer (reproduced above in bold).
10. It is stated by the Learned Counsel for the applicants that identical issue regarding anomaly due to passing of departmental examination by juniors in the higher Grade Pay and Pay Band subsequent to seniors was decided by C.A.T, Bangalore Bench vide Order dated 22.03.2019 in O.A.No.170/50/2017, which was assailed in Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by the respondents by filing W.P.C.T. No.49498 of 2019 and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide judgment dated 23.02.2021 had dismissed the said W.P.C.T. Thus, the Order dated 22.03.2019 passed by C.A.T., Bangalore Bench had attained finalilty and it was implemented in the said case vide Memorandum dated 28.12.2021.
11. The operative portion of the Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.C.T. No.49498 of 2019 dated 23.02.2021 is as follows:-
"10. Thus, in the present case, similar controversy is involved on account of revision of pay and grant of increments on clearing the departmental examination. The rate of increment became higher in the year 2011 and it was Rs.400/- for one increment, and it was Rs.320/- for one increment in the year 2010. Therefore, the seniors were granted Rs.640/- on account of two advance increments in the year 2010 and the junior was granted two advance increments amounting to Rs.800/- in the year 2011. The department itself has issued a circular for removal of such anomalies. The Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in allowing the application.
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:-Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
DN: C=IN, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY, O=Personal, ST=West Bengal, postalCode= SOMA 700114, pseudonym=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, serialNumber= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, telephoneNumber= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, title=6794 BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.13 17:28:03+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 10 "15. The particulars of the pay drawn by the respondent and Sri. Karunakaran are as hereunder:-
Sri Mohammed Illyas Sri Karunakaran
Date Basic Pay Date Basic Pay
(Rs.) (Rs.)
01.04.74 140.00 Annual 01.06.74 140.00 Annual
Iincrement Increment
18.10.74 156.00 Two advance
Increments 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 scale 01.01.77 480.00 Revised scale
1977 1977
01.06.77 500.00 Annual
29.11.77 55:00 Increment two
advance
increments for
proficiency in
shorthand
01.01.78 525.00 Annual 01.06.78 575.00 Annual
Increment Increment
01.01.79 550.00 Annual 01.06.79 600.00 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 reference to the said Government Order read with acquisition of proficiency in shorthand qualification by Sri. Karunakaran on 29.11.1977 two advance increments were granted, consequently pay Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY DN: C=IN, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY, O=Personal, ST=West Bengal, postalCode= SOMA 700114, pseudonym=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, serialNumber= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, telephoneNumber= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, title=6794 BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.13 17:28:03+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 11 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."
12. Another order was issued by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) in W.P.C.T.42 of 2023, whereby order of this Tribunal in O.A.No.388 of 2021, which was granted in favour of the applicant was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated 06.06.2023, relevant portion of which is as under:-
"Heard Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Datta, learned counsel for the respondent.
From the above materials, it is clear that the reliance of petitioners on the CBDT circular dated 3.3.2021 is not acceptable in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in State of Orissa & Anr. vs. Mamata Mohanty.
Further similar issue of two advance increments of Rs.640/- to senior and Rs.800/- for juniors to the Income Tax Inspectors was considered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore and order of Central Administrative Tribunal ordering stepping up of salary was confirmed by High Court at Karnataka.
The relevant portion of the High Court at Karnataka judgment reads as paragraph 6 and 7 as follows:-
"6. In the present case, advance increments have been granted to all the respondents as they qualified in the departmental examination of Inspector of Income Tax while serving as Tax Assistants. The anomaly in matter of pay fixation in the present case is only because, in the year 2010, respondent Nos. 1 to 11 Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY DN: C=IN, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY, O=Personal, ST=West Bengal, postalCode= SOMA 700114, pseudonym=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, serialNumber= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, telephoneNumber= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, title=6794 BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.13 17:28:03+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 12 have passed the departmental examination. The rate of increment was less than the rate of increment which was fixed for the year 2011 and two advance increments at the rate of Rs.640/- were granted to respondent Nos. 1 to 11 who were seniors respondent No.12, whereas in case of a junior, two advance increments were granted at the rate of Rs.800/-. In the present case, respondent No.12 who is junior and admittedly, who could not qualify in the departmental examination in time and who qualified in the examination later in the year 2011, is receiving higher pay than that of his seniors, who qualified in the departmental examination earlier to their junior.
7. Therefore, if the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for Union of India are accepted, it will result in awarding a person who was not able to prove his worth in the first round of examination and will also result in penalizing the seniors who qualified in the examination in the year 2010."
It is not the case of the petitioners that the order of High Court of Karnataka was challenged before the Apex Court. The judgment relied on by Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
In view of the above facts, the respondent is entitled to stepping up of pay of salary on par with his junior and there is no reason to interfere with the well- considered order of the Tribunal.
The writ petition fails and dismissed."
13. We find that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the aforementioned order of Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal, which was affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and attained its finality by implementation of the said orders. Thereafter Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal also passed similar order in O.A.No.388 of 2021, which was further upheld by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Sitting at Port Blair) vide order dated 06.06.2023 in W.P.C.T.No.42 of 2023. In our considered view, these orders cannot be said to be Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY DN: C=IN, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY, O=Personal, ST=West Bengal, postalCode= SOMA 700114, pseudonym=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, serialNumber= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, telephoneNumber= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, title=6794 BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.13 17:28:03+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 13 in "personam" and the applicants being similarly situated and circumstanced are entitled to get extension of the benefit of the said orders.
14. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the judgment of this Tribunal passed by Bangalore Bench on 22.03.2019 in O.A.No.170/50/2017 and also the judgment passed by Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.No.388 of 2021 upheld by respective High Court, to the applicants within a period o 60 days from the date of communication of this order.
15. Accordingly the O.A. stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Suchitto Kumar Das) (Urmita Datta Sen)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
sb
Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
DN: C=IN, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY, O=Personal, ST=West Bengal, postalCode= SOMA 700114, pseudonym=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, serialNumber= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, telephoneNumber= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, title=6794 BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.13 17:28:03+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0