Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Lalit Kumar Salgat vs M/O Information And Broadcasting on 7 August, 2025
1 OA No.2084/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.2084/2018
Dated this Thursday the 07th August, 2025
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
Lalit Kumar Salgat S/o Anandrao Salgat
Age 55 years, Occupation : Superintending
Engineer (E), All India Radio,
Nagpur R/o Qr. No.25,
Type V (New) Central Govt.
Residential Complex, Near T.V. Tower,
Seminary Hills, Nagpur - 440 006. ... Applicant
(By Advocate Ms. Bhagyashali A. Abhyankar)
VERSUS
1. The Union of India, through The
Secretary, Ministry of Information &
Broadcasting, A-Wing, Shastry Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Prasar
Milan Jackson
Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone=
30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc,
PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=
Bharati, Tower 'C', Doordarshan,
6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan
Copernicus Marg, Mandi House,
Jackson Alphanso
Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0
New Delhi - 110 011.
3. The Director-General, All India Radio
Akashwani Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2 OA No.2084/2018
4. The Chief Engineer, Civil Construction
Wing, All India Radio,
Soochana Bhawan, C.G.O. Complex,
New Delhi - 110 003.
5. The Director-General,
All India Radio
(Civil Construction Wing,
6th Floor, Soochna Bhavan,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
6. Mr. Noorul Hoda
Age 65 years, Occupation : Superintending
Engineer (E), CCW AIR (Retired)
Address: House No.52, Maulana Azad Nagar,
FCI Road, Phulwarishaif Patna - 801 505
(Amendment is carried out in view of order
dated 06.02.2023) ... Respondents
(By Advocate Shri P.H. Khobragade)
ORDER
Per: Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A)
The applicant has filed this OA under Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to claim the following reliefs:-
"(i) To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 31.10.2017 (Annexure A-1 of the OA) to the extent by which his pay is fixed notionally from 08.10.2013 to 21.03.2017.3 OA No.2084/2018
(ii) To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26.02.2018 (Annexure A-1(a) rejecting his request for stepping up his pay by quoting inapplicable OM dated 04.11.1993.
ii-a) to direct the respondent to fixed his pay in PB-4 + GP 8700/- effectively from the date from which his junior Mr. Noorul Hooda (Respondent No.6) pay was fixed in PB-4 + GP 8700/- to pay him the arrears of pay and allowances with all consequential benefits.
iii) To direct the respondents to fix his pay in PB-4+ GP 8700/- effectively w.e.f. the date on which the vacancies in S.E. cadre has occurred in 2009 and to pay him the arrears of pay and allowances.
iv) To pay him the interest @12% P.A. on such arrears of pay and allowances.
v) Any other consequential relief including the cost of OA."
2. Facts in brief as submitted by the applicant in the OA are that he was appointed as Assistant Engineer (E) in Civil Construction Wing, All India Radio at Hyderabad on 17.05.1986.
Digitally signed by Milan Jackson AlphansoIn due course of time, he was promoted as Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Executive Engineer (E) in 1997. Thereafter, he was entrusted with the charge of Superintending Engineer (E) Nagpur vide order dated 24.06.2014 on current duty charge (in short 'CDC') which was 4 OA No.2084/2018 continued without any break till March, 2017 (Annexure A-2). He was appointed as Superintending Engineer(E) w.e.f. 08.10.2013 on notional basis and on actual basis w.e.f. assumption of charge by respondent No.1 vide order dated 27.02.2017 (Annexure A-3) and claims that he has unblemished service up till now. 2.1. The applicant was posted to Guwahati sometime in 2005. As per DoPT OM dated 14.12.1983 (Annexure A-3(a)), he was entitled to following benefits :
"(a) Government Servant posted to difficult station, on completion of their tenure are entitled to choice posting.
(b) Further specific entry in ACRs to the effect that he has served in North-East and completed his tenure is also to be made and he must be given due recognition in promotion"
On completion of his tenure at Guwahati, he has Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 submitted option for posting at (i) Mumbai and
(ii) Delhi, but he was transferred to Nagpur against his choice posting. Hence, he filed OA No.123/2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench challenging his transfer 5 OA No.2084/2018 to a non-choice place. The Guwahati Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 16.05.2007 (Annexure A-
4) disposed of the OA with a direction to the respondents to pass appropriate order on the representation within time frame and not to disturb the applicant till the order is passed.
Consequently, he was transferred to Delhi.
Thereafter, the respondents have started harassing him.
2.2 The respondent No.5 vide letter dated 11.03.2010 (Annexure A-5) has communicated adverse remarks of his ACR for the period 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007, 01.04.2007 to 04.09.2007 and below benchmark ACR from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009. The remarks of 3 years Milan Jackson Alphanso Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 old period were communicated in violation of time frame of one month fixed by the Government. The applicant in his letter dated 26.03.2010 (Annexure A-6) submitted a detailed representation pointing out various breaches of 6 OA No.2084/2018 rules committed and also expressed his apprehension about malafide intentions. The representation of the applicant was considered by the respondent No.4. The respondent No.4, ignoring the notings of EO-I and SSW-II, forwarded the file to the Directorate with recommendation to reject the representation. Accordingly, the respondent No.4 rejected the representation of the applicant vide his letter dated 07.06.2010 (Annexure A-7) by a cryptic order without any reason even though the representation was addressed to respondent No.3.
2.3 The applicant submitted a representation to His Excellency President of India against the rejection of his representation by order dated Milan Jackson Alphanso Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 07.06.2010. The respondent No.1 instead of deciding the applicant's Presidential Memorial vide order dated 05.05.2011 (Annexure A-7(a)) has directed the respondent No.3 to decide the Presidential Memorial, though the respondent No.3 7 OA No.2084/2018 was not competent to decide it. The respondent No.3 vide his letter dated 13.09.2012 (Annexure A-8) by a reasoned and speaking order has expunged the adverse remarks and upgraded his final grading from 'Good' to 'Very Good'. This order was subsequently challenged before the Principal Bench of Tribunal, New Delhi by one of the junior of the applicant Shri Ashok Kumar (Annexure A-8). The Tribunal vide order dated 18.03.2013 (Annexure A-10) has quashed the order as the action of the respondents was not in consonance with the provision of law because the Memorial was to be decided by respondent No.1 at the level of Hon'ble Ministry of Information and Broadcasting only.
Milan Jackson Alphanso Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 2.4 It has been submitted that due to these adverse entries, the respondents have overlooked the claim of the applicant and have directed three of his juniors, Shri B.S. Mudhar, Shri Noorul Hoda and Shri Ashok Kumar to hold the 8 OA No.2084/2018 charge of Superintending Engineer (E)(SE)on current duty charge basis vide order dated 17.09.2010. They were further directed on adhoc basis vide order dated 23.03.2012 and on regular basis vide order dated 08.10.201 (collectively Annexure A-9).
2.5 It has been submitted that the applicant after receipt of copy of the Tribunal's order again represented to His Excellency The President of India to decide his pending appeal dated 03.12.2010 vide his letter dated 05.04.2013 (Annexure A-11) requesting for early decision on his appeal by appropriate authority with a speaking order to safeguard his interest. The applicant pursued the issue by submitting Milan Jackson Alphanso Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 reminders dated 01.07.2014, 10.08.2015 and 26.10.2015. In his letter dated 07.12.2015 (Annexure A-12), the applicant expressed his anguish on inordinate delay in deciding his Presidential Memorial and requested for early 9 OA No.2084/2018 decision in the matter. Finally, the competent authority passed a speaking order dated 15.12.2015 (Annexure A-13) by which all the adverse remarks were expunged and his final grading was upgraded to 'Very Good'.
2.6 The applicant, thereafter, submitted representation dated 12.01.2016 (Annexure A-14) and requested for early holding of review DPC meeting for the promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer from the date from which his juniors Shri Noorul Hoda and Shri Ashok Kumar were promoted on CDC and on adhoc basis. He pursued the matter vigorously vide his representations dated 01.03.2016, 12.04.2016 and 07.06.2016. Due to his persuasion, the applicant Milan Jackson Alphanso Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 was promoted as Superintending Engineer vide order dated 27.02.2017 (Annexure A-13) but his pay was fixed in PB-3, Rs.15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs.7600/- w.e.f 08.10.2013 on notional basis and on actual basis from the date of 10 OA No.2084/2018 assumption of charge of the post.
2.7 It has been submitted that the pay of his juniors Shri Noorul Hoda was fixed in PB-4 + GP of Rs.8700/- vide order dated 03.03.2015 and the pay of Shri Ashok Kumar and similarly placed Superintending Engineer (Civil), Shri A.K. Verma were fixed in the same pay band and GP by order dated 08.02.2016. But the applicant's pay was fixed in PB-3 with Grade Pay of Rs.7600/- though he was identically situated and senior to the above named persons. The applicant submitted representation dated 21.03.2017 (Annexure A-15) addressed to respondent No.1 and requested for pay fixation in PB-4 + GP of Rs.8700/- from the same date from which his immediate junior, Shri Milan Jackson Alphanso Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 N. Hoda was drawing the pay.
2.8 Being aggrieved by the pay fixation in lower pay band, the applicant submitted a representation to the respondent No.1 vide his letter dated 30.03.2017 (Annexure A-16) followed 11 OA No.2084/2018 by reminders dated 25.05.2017 and 11.08.2018.
Pursuant to his representation, the respondents vide order 21.09.2017 (Annexure A-18) upgraded his pay scale to PB-4 + GP of Rs.8700/- on the ground that officer mentioned therein are similarly situated. However, while fixing his pay by impugned order dated 31.10.2017, his pay was fixed notionally w.e.f. 08.10.2013 and effectively from 22.03.2017.
2.9 Being aggrieved by the said pay fixation, the applicant again submitted representation to respondent No.4 vide his letter dated 15.11.2017 (Annexure A-19) and requested for removing the pay anomaly wherein his juniors were drawing more salary than him for no fault of Milan Jackson Alphanso Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 him. The representation was followed by reminder dated 31.01.2018 but his request was rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dated 26.02.2018 (Annexure A-1(a) of the OA). 12 OA No.2084/2018 2.10 The applicant has submitted the seniority list of the Executive Engineer as on 01.01.2008 (Annexure A-20) which exhibits that his juniors Shri Noorul Hoda has been promoted as Executive Engineer on 13.04.1998 and Shri Ashok Kumar on 29.08.2002 whereas the applicant was promoted as Executive Engineer on 01.02.1997.
Thus, he was superseded due to the adverse remarks given with malafide intentions and his Presidential Memorial was badly delayed and was decided after a lapse of 5 years. Review DPC was held after 2 years thereafter and actual promotion was given after 7 years from the Presidential Memorial. The applicant claims that he is a victim of malafide action since 2010 when Milan Jackson Alphanso Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 the adverse entries of 3 years were communicated and they remained till 2015 and thereafter took 2 years to hold review DPC and thereafter one year for issue of promotion order. Aggrieved for non- fixation of pay from the date when his juniors 13 OA No.2084/2018 are getting higher pay than him, the applicant has filed this OA.
2.11 It has been submitted that the applicant fulfills all the conditions as laid down in Government of India Instruction No.23 below FR 22 for stepping up of his pay with his juniors as they were drawing less pay than the applicant all along and anomaly has arisen due to the application of FR 22(I)(a)(i).
2.12 It has been submitted that Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the case of P.B. Narang Vs. Union of India vide order dated 03.02.2003, All India Services Law Journal 2004(3) 84 (Annexure A-22 of the OA) has held that payment for promotion wrongly denied should be made. He has further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Ramesh Kumar Vs. Union of India, SCC (L&S), 2018 (1) 781 wherein it was held that the principle of no work no pay would not be applicable in the case where respondents themselves were at fault in not 14 OA No.2084/2018 deciding the Presidential Memorial in reasonable period and thereafter not considering the case of applicant for promotion. He has further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. T.M. Somaranjan (AISLJ 2010 (2)1) wherein it was held that juniors getting more pay than the seniors is an anomaly (Annexure A-23).
3. After issuance of notice, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply and contested the OA.
3.1. The respondents have admitted that the applicant was appointed as Assistant Engineer (E)w.e.f. 17.05.1986 and promoted as Executive Engineer (E)w.e.f. 01.02.1997. The respondents have also not disputed the averments of the Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 applicant that Shri Nooral Hoda was promoted as Executive Engineer on 13.04.1998 and Shri Ashok Kumar on 29.08.2002, thus both were junior to him as Executive Engineer (E).15 OA No.2084/2018
3.2 The respondents have further submitted that the applicant was posted as Superintending Engineer (E), Nagpur on CDC basis vide order dated 24.06.2014. He was promoted as Superintending Engineer (E)after review DPC vide respondent No.1's order dated 27.02.2017 w.e.f. 08.10.2013 on notional basis and on actual basis w.e.f the date of assumption of charge of the post at his place of posting in the pay scale PB- 3 i.e. Rs.15600-39100/- with Grade Pay of Rs.7600/- whereas his immediate juniors Shri Noorul Hoda and Shri Ashok Kumar, Superintending Engineer (E) and Shri A.K. Verma, Superintending Engineer(C), pay was fixed in PB-4 + GP of Milan Jackson Alphanso Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Rs.8700/- based on the Hon'ble CAT's order in different cases. The respondents have not explained as to why the applicant's pay was fixed in PB-3 + GP of Rs.7600/- when the post is in the scale of PB-4 + GP of Rs.8700/-. The applicant 16 OA No.2084/2018 alongwith other Superintending Engineer (C/E) was also granted Grade Pay of Rs.8700/- in PB-4 w.e.f. 08.10.2013 by respondent No.1 vide order dated 21.09.2017 and his pay was fixed vide order dated 31.10.2017.
3.3 It has been submitted that the applicant's request for stepping up of pay at par with his junior Shri Noorul Hoda (on adhoc basis) as per respondent No.1 order dated 23.03.2012 and his pay was fixed as per CAT Kolkata Bench order dated 30.08.2013. Hence, the stepping up of pay of the applicant with his junior was rejected based on DoPT OM dated 04.11.1993 (Annexure A-6).
3.4 The respondents have denied that the respondent No.4 had already submitted the EDPC Milan Jackson Alphanso Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 proposal to Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on 09.11.2010. It has been submitted that because of adverse remarks in the applicant's ACRs, his juniors were promoted. His remark was expunged by upgrading ACR to 'Very 17 OA No.2084/2018 Good' by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting vide speaking order dated 15.12.2015. Thereafter the applicant was promoted after review DPC retrospectively w.e.f. 08.10.2013 and placed above Shri B.S. Mudhar, SE(Retired) vide Ministry of Information and Broadcasting order dated 27.02.2017.
3.5 It has been submitted that a review DPC proposal for consideration by UPSC for the vacancy year 2008-09 and 2010-2011 was sent to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB). The applicant was promoted from the date his immediate juniors were promoted i.e. w.e.f.
08.10.2013 on notional basis and on actual basis from the date of assumption of charge of the post Milan Jackson Alphanso Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 by Shri Salgat on 22.03.2017 as per prevalent rules.
3.6 It has been further submitted that the applicant's request for removing the pay anomaly was not as per the ambit of DoPT OM dated 18 OA No.2084/2018 04.11.1993 vide para 2(c) and 3 of the OM which states as under:-
"2(c)If a senior joins the higher post later than the junior, for whatsoever reasons, whereby he draws less pay then the junior, in such cases senior cannot claim stepping up of pay at par with the junior.
(3) In the instances referred to in paragraph 2 above, a junior drawing more pay than the senior will not constitute an anomaly. In such cases, stepping up of pay will not therefore be admissible."
3.7 It has been submitted that communication of adverse remark was due to procedural delay. It has been submitted that averment of the applicant that he was harassed is denied. His representation against adverse remarks was Milan Jackson Alphanso Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 considered by the competent authority which was expunged and upgraded vide order dated 15.12.2015. It has been submitted that the respondents have acted as per rules applicable and averments made by the applicant are incorrect 19 OA No.2084/2018 as per ambit of rules i.e. FRSR 22 23(2). It has been finally submitted that the applicant is not entitled for stepping up of pay and the OA being devoid of merits needs to be dismissed.
4. The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating and further elaborating his submissions made in the OA. It has been submitted that the respondents have simply denied the contents of averments made in the OA without giving any specific reply to the charges of harassment levelled by the applicant. The respondents have not given any reply as to why the adverse remarks of ACR for the year 2006- 2007, 01.04.2007 to 04.09.2007 and for the year 2008-2009 were communicated to him vide letter Milan Jackson Alphanso Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 dated 11.03.2010 which should have been communicated within the time frame of one month fixed by the Government. The respondents have not given any reply to the casual manner in which his representation was considered and decided without 20 OA No.2084/2018 issuing any speaking order as required by law. 4.1 It has been submitted that the applicant has not stated anything about EDPC proposal submitted to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting dated 09.11.2010. The supersession of the applicant was biased and vindictive action of the respondents. Initially they communicated the adverse remarks of ACR after three years and thereafter mishandled the representation of the applicant and got it decided by incompetent authority i.e. respondent No.3. It is surprising that the higher level supervisory authority had acted in casual and negligent manner. 4.2 It has been further submitted that the respondents have not given any reply as to why Milan Jackson Alphanso Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 they took two years to pass an order at the level of DG AIR modifying the final grading of the applicant.
4.3 It has been submitted that the respondents had adopted a biased and vindictive 21 OA No.2084/2018 attitude all along. The final grading of the applicant was upgraded to 'Very Good' by order dated 15.12.2015 after a lapse of 5 years of submission of Presidential Memorial and on top of it they have not initiated any action to hold meeting of Review DPC. It was only due to persistent persuasion of the applicant that they held the DPC meeting and promoted him after a lapse of more than one year by order dated 27.02.2017. Again a gross injustice was caused to him and his Grade Pay was fixed at Rs.7600/-
whereas the Grade Pay of all his juniors was fixed at Rs.8700/-. A delay of about 7 years has resulted in gross injustice to the applicant.
4.4 It has been further submitted that reply Milan Jackson Alphanso Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 given by the respondents is misleading as the OM dated 04.11.1993 is not applicable in the applicant's case as he was denied the rightful promotion by the respondents. Further, it is accepted that their action to grant him upgraded 22 OA No.2084/2018 pay scale in PB-4 + GP 8700/- is contradicting their submission.
5. The respondents have filed reply to the rejoinder submitted by the applicant reiterating their submissions in the reply without taking any new point.
6. During arguments, learned counsel for both the sides have argued their case on the basis of pleadings.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant, in addition to the judgment relied in the OA, has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopichand Vishnoi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2006 DGLS(SC) 333 decision dated 24.04.2006 and another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam Vs. S.C. Atri, 1998 DGLS(SC) 519 Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 decision dated 29.04.1998 and copy of the Fundamental Rules regarding pay fixation on promotion and availability of option in support of the relief claimed in the OA. She has also placed reliance 23 OA No.2084/2018 on the decision of Calcutta Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Noorul Hoda Vs. Union of India & Ors., OA No.1127/2012 decision dated 30.08.2013 and order of the respondents dated 21.11.2017 granting the higher pay scale to Shri Noorul Hoda in compliance of Hon'ble High Court, Kolkata order dated 07.03.2017 in Writ Petition No.36/2016 filed by Shri Noorul Hoda.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in the case of Noorul Hoda Vs. Union of India & Others in Writ Petition No.36/2016 decision dated 07.03.2017 to justify their stand of the respondents.
9. We have heard learned counsel for both Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 the sides at length and perused the pleadings and documents placed on record. We have also gone through the various judgments and orders relied upon by both the sides.24 OA No.2084/2018
10. It is not in dispute that the applicant was appointed as Assistant Engineer on 17.05.1986 and he was promoted as Executive Engineer(E) w.e.f. 01.02.1997. It is also not in dispute that his juniors Shri Noorul Hoda was promoted as Executive Engineer on 13.04.1998 and Shri Ashok Kumar on 29.08.2002. Thus, both these Executive Engineers were junior to the applicant in the grade of Executive Engineer (E). It is also not disputed that the respondents have posted the applicant as Superintending Engineer (E), Nagpur on current duty charge (CDC) basis w.e.f.
24.06.2014 and he was working as Superintending Engineer (E)on CDC basis since then. He was promoted as Superintending Engineer (E) after Milan Jackson Alphanso Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 review DPC vide respondent No.1's order dated 27.02.2017 w.e.f. 08.10.2013 on notional basis and on actual basis w.e.f. the date of assumption of the charge of the post at his place of posting in the pay scale PB-3 i.e. Rs.15600-39100 with 25 OA No.2084/2018 Grade Pay of Rs.7600/- whereas his immediate juniors Shri Noorul Hoda and Shri Ashok Kumar, Superintending Engineer (E) and Shri A.K. Verma, Superintending Engineer (C)were given the Pay Band - 4 with Grade Pay of Rs.8700/-. Thus, it defies logic and against service law that when his juniors, who were also in the scale of Superintending Engineers, were given the PB-4 with Grade Pay of Rs.8700/-, why the applicant was given PB-3 with Grade Pay of Rs.7600/- while he was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer (E)
11. It is not in dispute that in the grade of Executive Engineer which is a feeder grade for post of Superintending Engineer, both his juniors Milan Jackson Alphanso Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 were drawing less pay than the applicant.
Therefore, the applicant will be covered by instruction No.23 below FR 22 of stepping up of his pay as both Shri Noorul Hoda and Shri Ashok Kumar were junior to the applicant and they were 26 OA No.2084/2018 drawing less pay than the applicant all along and the anomaly has arisen due to the application of FR-22(I)(a)(i).
12. The claim of the respondents that the applicant could not be promoted earlier because his ACRs for the year 2006-2007, 01.04.2007 to 04.09.2007 and for the year 2008-2009 were adverse does not help the case of the respondents as the applicant was not communicated these ACRs till 11.03.2010, even though, there are specific instructions that adverse ACRs have to be communicated within one month. The applicant made Memorial to the President i.e. respondent No.1 but it was wrongly decided by the respondent No.3 for which the respondents are responsible and not Milan Jackson Alphanso Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 the applicant.
13. It is further seen that finally the ACRs of the applicant were upgraded vide order dated 15.12.2015 i.e. after a long gap of 5 years after same were communicated to him. Once the ACRs are 27 OA No.2084/2018 upgraded by the Competent Authority, earlier adverse remarks and grading in the ACR become non-est. Inspite of upgraded ACRs, the respondents took two years to conduct the review DPC and even when the applicant was promoted, he was put in the PB-3 while his juniors were given PB-4. Thus, it is the clear case of the discrimination against the applicant.
14. We find that the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case of P.B. Narang Vs. Union of India & Another in OA No.2349/2001 dated 03.02.2003, IX-2004(3) ALSLJ 84, referring to the Full Bench Judgment of the Tribunal in B.S. Tyagi's case in CP No.154/2001 in OA No.2066/2001 decided on 02.01.2002 which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court, the Full Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson Bench has held in para 7 (a) that "An employee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 who was not promoted earlier due to administrative lapse, on his retrospective notional promotion to the higher post subsequently with effect from the date his 28 OA No.2084/2018 juniors have been promoted, would be entitled to arrears of pay and allowances with retrospective date".
14.1 We further find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others, (2015) 14 SCC 335 has held that when an employee is granted retrospective promotion, he is entitled to higher pay and allowances on promotion post and all benefits flowing therein must be extended to the employee who was denied promotion earlier. It will be helpful to extract herein para Nos.14 to 16 of the judgment herein as under:
"14. In normal circumstances when retrospective promotions are effected, all benefits flowing therefrom, including monetary benefits, must be extended to an employee who has Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso been denied promotion earlier. So far as monetary benefits with regard to retrospective promotion are concerned that Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 depends upon case to case. In State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, (2007) 6 SCC 524, this Court held that the principle of "no work no pay" cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb and the matter will have to be considered on a case- to- case basis and in para (4), it was held as under:-
"4. ... We have considered the decisions cited on behalf of both the sides. So far as the situation with 29 OA No.2084/2018 regard to monetary benefits with retrospective promotion is concerned, that depends upon case to case. There are various facets which have to be considered. Sometimes in a case of departmental enquiry or in criminal case it depends on the authorities to grant full back wages or 50 per cent of back wages looking to the nature of delinquency involved in the matter or in criminal cases where the incumbent has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt or full acquittal. Sometimes in the matter when the person is superseded and he has challenged the same before court or tribunal and he succeeds in that and direction is given for reconsideration of his case from the date persons junior to him were appointed, in that case the court may grant sometimes full benefits with retrospective effect and sometimes it may not. Particularly when the administration has wrongly denied his due then in that case he should be given full benefits including monetary benefit subject to there being any change in law or some other supervening factors. However, it is very difficult to set down any hard-and-fast rule. The principle "no work no pay" cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb. There are exceptions where courts have granted monetary benefits also."
15. We are conscious that even in the absence of statutory provision, normal rule is "no work no pay". In appropriate cases, a court of law may take into account all the facts in Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= their entirety and pass an appropriate order in consonance with law. The principle of "no work no pay" would not be 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 attracted where the respondents were in fault in not considering the case of the appellant for promotion and not allowing the appellant to work on a post of Naib Subedar carrying higher pay scale. In the facts of the present case when the appellant was granted promotion w.e.f. 01.01.2000 with the ante-dated seniority from 01.08.1997 and maintaining his seniority along with his batchmates, it would be unjust to deny him higher pay and allowances in the 30 OA No.2084/2018 promotional position of Naib Subedar.
16. The impugned orders passed by the High Court are set aside and this appeal is allowed. The respondents shall release the arrears of pay and allowances to the appellant for the period from 01.08.1997 till the date of his actual promotion that is 13.11.2000 in the promotional post of Naib Subedar within eight weeks from today. No order as to costs."
15. We further find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. T.M. Somarajan & Ors., AISLJ 2010 Volume - Two 1 has held that where there was a peculiar anomaly as juniors of the Officer were getting higher pay, the officer approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The Tribunal after examining the IPS(Pay) Rules, 1954 has held that the applicant therein was entitled for higher pay than his juniors. The Tribunal directed the Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson respondents/State to ensure removal of the DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 anomaly in the applicant's pay fixation and allowed the pay protection with all consequential benefits. The order of the Tribunal was challenged before the Ernakulam High Court of 31 OA No.2084/2018 Kerla by way of OP No.22783/2002 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court. The matter was taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal Nos.9041 of 2003 with SLP (C) Nos.14700-14701 of 2004. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to dismissed the same vide order dated 21.10.2009.
16. The respondents have placed reliance on the Calcutta Bench of this Tribunal and the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court to claim that Mr. Noorul Hoda and Shri Ashok Kumar were given the higher pay because of the Court's order does not help their case.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the case of stepping up of the applicant in the case of Gurcharan Singh Grewal vs. Punjab State Electricity Board Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 and Others, (2009) 3 SCC 94 wherein it was held that senior cannot be paid less than his junior even if anomaly in Senior's pay is due to difference of incremental benefits. Senior's pay was 32 OA No.2084/2018 directed to be stepped up with reference to higher pay of junior under Fundamental Rules 27. For the ready reference, para Nos.17 and 18 of the judgment are reproduced herein 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 2.
18. We are unable to accept the reasoning of the High Court in this regard or the submissions made in support thereof by Mr. Chhabra, since the very object to be achieved is to bring the pay scale of Appellant 1 on a par with that of his junior. We are clearly of the opinion that the reasoning of the High Court was erroneous and Appellant 1 was also entitled to the same benefits of pay parity with Shri Shori as has been granted to Appellant 2. (Emphasis supplied)"Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso
Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 17.1 Similarly in the case of Union of India and Others vs. C.R. Madhava Murthy and Another, (2022) 6 SCC 183, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that on promotion, the pay of the senior officers should 33 OA No.2084/2018 be stepped up with juniors and the seniors cannot draw less pay than their juniors. It will be helpful to extract para Nos.10 and 11 of the judgment herein as under:
"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 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 that 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;
Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone=
(b) The scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical; 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0
(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."34 OA No.2084/2018
The orders refixing the pay of the senior officers in 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)".
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)"
It can be seen that the applicant and his juniors belong to the same cadre and the post in which they have been promoted and were appointed. The Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 which they are entitled to draw pay was also identical. It is not the case of the respondents that the juniors were getting higher pay because of any advance increment. Therefore, FR-27 will 35 OA No.2084/2018 be applicable for refixing the pay of the applicant.
18. The issue of stepping up of the pay also arose before the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.50/2017 wherein the juniors were getting higher pay than the senior. The Tribunal vide order dated 22.03.2019 has held that Fundamental Fule 22 deals with the removal of such anomaly and the respondents were directed to step up the pay of the applicant in accordance with FR-27.
The respondents took the matter before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by way of Writ Petition No.49498/2019. The Hon'ble High Court vide judgment and order dated 23.02.2021 was pleased to uphold the order of the Tribunal and Milan Jackson Alphanso Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 the respondents were directed to step up the pay of the seniors with that of the juniors. The said order was implemented by the respondents therein. A similar issue arose before this Tribunal in the case of Gyanendu Shekhar and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors in 36 OA No.2084/2018 OA No.501/2021, CAT, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai. This Tribunal vide order dated 20.04.2023 has directed to step up the pay of the applicants. It will be helpful to extract para Nos.11 & 12 of the said order of the Tribunal herein below:
"11. We find that Bangalore Bench of CAT while deciding the similar case has held as under:
"The question is not whether FR 22 has an application or not. The question is under whatever interpretation if a junior is drawing more pay which is denied to a senior unjustifiably then it must be remedied. Both sides admit that the applicants are seniors to the party respondent who is junior. Sri Sugumaran clarifies that he was the junior earlier but then the applicants passed the departmental examination earlier and were promoted and posted whereas the junior was promoted later as he could not pass the examination. But then at that point of time, the rate of increment was more than what the applicants obtained on their promotion. This they would say is an Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Act of God and therefore cannot be a remedy. It is not so.
2. It is trite law that the junior cannot have more pay than the senior. In such circumstances, if by right or wrong interpretation of the rules, it is made out to the junior, it has to be protected to the applicants also.37 OA No.2084/2018
Therefore, the applicants are eligible to have the same pay as the junior is getting. A mandate is issued for the same. Benefits to be made available within two (2) months without interest and thereafter at the rate of 12% interest. The OA is allowed."
12.The above order of the CAT has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. We find that the case of the applicants is similar to the one decided by the Bangalore Bench of CAT and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the O.A. deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed subject to the outcome of SLP being filed by the department if any. The respondents are directed to comply to the above directions within three months from the date of receipt of this order."
19. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the applicant has suffered enough for no Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Milan Jackson DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 fault of him as there has been inordinate delay in communicating adverse ACRs to him after three years as against prescribed norm of 30 days. Then his Memorial to the President i.e. respondent No.1 was referred to respondent No.3 who was not 38 OA No.2084/2018 a competent authority and finally it was decided by the respondent No.1 in 2015 i.e. after delay of 5 years and then DPC was held after two years and thus the applicant has suffered for no fault of him for more than 7 years.
20. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Court and various Benches of this Tribunal as discussed above, we are of the view that the Original Application deserves to be allowed.
Resultantly, the impugned order dated 31.10.2017 (Annexure A-1 of the OA) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to fix the pay of the applicant in PB-4 with Grade Pay of Milan Jackson Alphanso Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 Rs.8700 w.e.f. 08.10.2013 to 21.03.2017. Further, the order dated 26.02.2018 (Annexure A-1(a)) rejecting his request for stepping up of his pay with his juniors is also quashed and set aside. 39 OA No.2084/2018 20.1 The respondents are directed to fix the pay of the applicant in Pay Band - 4 with Grade Pay of Rs.8700/- effectively from the date from which his junior Shri Noorul Hoda (respondent No.6) pay was fixed in PB-4 with Grade Pay of Rs.8700/- alongwith arrears of the pay and allowances with all consequential benefits. 20.2 So far as relief sought in clause 8(iii) to direct the respondents to fix his pay in PB-4 + Grade Pay of Rs.8700/- effectively with effect from the date on which the vacancies in Superintending Engineer cadre occurred in 2009 is concerned, the same cannot be accepted as the applicant has not challenged the proceedings of DPC by which he has been promoted w.e.f.
Milan Jackson Alphanso Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 08.10.2013. In view of there being no challenge to the DPC proceedings, we do not find it appropriate to allow the said claim. We further direct the respondents to pay interest on the arrears of pay and allowances to the applicant 40 OA No.2084/2018 w.e.f. 08.10.2013 @GPF applicable. The respondents are directed to comply with the above order within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
21. In view of the order and directions, the Original application is partly allowed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No costs.
(Umesh Gajankush) (Shri Krishna)
Member (J) Member (A)
ma.
Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso
Milan Jackson
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 15:01:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0