Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Raghavendra S vs Comptroller And Auditor General Of ... on 23 September, 2025
1 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
1CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00656/2023
ORDER RESERVED : 04.09.2025
DATE OF ORDER : 23.09.2025
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI SHRIVASTAVA ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE MR.SANTOSH MEHRA ...MEMBER(A)
1. Shri Raghavendra S.,
Aged 54 years,
S/o Satyanarayana E.S.,
No.349, 5th 'A' Main,
Narayananagar 3rd block,
Doddakallasandra,
Kanakapura Road,
Bengaluru-560062.
2. Shri Ravikumar U.,
Aged 49 years,
S/o Late U.Veerabhadra Rao,
No.97, 2nd Cross, Shirdi Sai Nagar,
K.Narayanapura Main Road,
Bengaluru-560077.
3. Shri Sanjeev C.,
Aged 53 years,
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI 15:35:06
+05'30'
2 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
S/o C.S.Ramachandra Rao,
#102, First Floor, No.49, Ramamurthy Legacy,
3rd Model House Street,
Basavanagudi, Bengaluru-560004.
4. Shri G.Srikanth,
Aged 56 years,
S/o B.Gururaja Rao,
No.318, 11th Cross,
ISRO Layout, Bengaluru-560078.
5. Smt. A.N.Lakshmi,
Aged 57 years,
W/o N.Shankar,
Flat No.101,
Shri Nanjundeshwara Residency RR6,
No.911/B, 19th Main,
Ideal Homes Township,
Rajarajeshwari Nagar,
Bengaluru-560098.
6. Smt. Meena P.V.,
Aged 57 years,
W/o Ramesh Natarajan,
#177, 7th Cross, 9th Main,
BEML Layout, 3rd Stage,
Rajarajeshwari Nagar,
Bengaluru-560098.
7. Ms.Padma M.,
Aged 57 years,
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI 15:35:06
+05'30'
3 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
D/o Muthuswamy Iyer,
No.15, Sri Guru Vihar, Flat No.102,
1st Floor, 3rd Cross, Amara Jyothi Layout,
Sanjaynagar,
Bengaluru-560094.
8. Shri S.Ravi,
Aged 59 years,
S/o R.Srinivasaraghava,
41, 6th Floor, D6 Block,
Kendriya Vihar,
Yelahanka, Bengaluru-560064.
9. Shri Raghavendra B.M.,
Aged 58 years,
S/o K.Budhananda,
No.1098, 26th B Main,
Jayanagar 9th Block,
Bengaluru -560069.
10.Smt.Margathavalli M.,
Aged 54 years,
W/o Natarajan V.,
F-1005, Brigade Gateway Apartments,
26/1, Dr.Rajkumar Road,
Malleswaram West,
Bengaluru-560055.
11.Shri Sahadevan K.V.,
Aged 57 years,
S/o Shankaran K.,
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI 15:35:06
+05'30'
4 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
U-2 CPWD Quarters,
Vijayanagar, Bengaluru-560040.
12.Smt.Beena Thomas.
Aged 52 years,
W/o Thomas John.
No.51, Nikhil Villa,
Palm Springs Layout,
Gubbalala,
Bengaluru-560062.
13.Shri Kunhiraman P.V.,
Aged 60 years,
S/o Late B.Raman Nambiar,
'Souhardha', No.2, 10th Cross,
3rd Main Road, LBS Nagar,
Vimanapura Post, Bengaluru-560017. ...Applicants
(By Advocate, Ms.Nitya Kaligotla)
Vs.
1. The Principal Accountant General (Audit-I),
(Cadre Controlling Authority),
Karnataka, Bengaluru-560001.
2. The Comptroller and Auditor General (N),
O/o comptroller and Auditor General of India,
No.9, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg,
New Delhi-110124. ...Respondents
(By Advocate, Shri N.Amaresh)
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI 15:35:06
+05'30'
5 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Santosh Mehra ...........Member(A)
Through this OA , the applicants have sought for the following reliefs:
"A. Setting aside the Endorsement dated 21.11.2022 bearing No.Pr.AG (Audit-I)/Admn II/A5/2022-23/104 ('Impugned Endrosement') issued by the Respondents, produced at Annexure A1;
B. Consequently, grant stepping-up of pay to the Applicants by directing the Respondents to fix the pay scale of the Applicants as per Rule 7(10) of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2016;
C. Consequently, direct the Respondents to pay arrears to the Applicants from the relevant date: and D. Pass any such further and other orders as may be necessary in the interests of justice."
2. The Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are all working in the cadre of Senior Audit Officers in the office of the Principal Accountant General (Audit-I), Karnataka, Bengaluru i.e., the Respondent No.1. Prior to 01.01.2016, officers, junior to the applicants, working in S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 6 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH the same posts as the applicants i.e., Audit Officers, were drawing lesser pay than the applicants, till the applicants were promoted to the post of Senior Audit Officers on different dates prior to 01.01.2016. As a direct result of the application of the provisions of FR 22(I)(a)(1) and the implementation of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 (CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016), juniors of the applicants who were promoted to the post of Senior Audit Officers later than 01.01.2016 started getting higher pay than the applicants in the same post. Since the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 specifically provides for a rectification of this anomaly under Rule 7(10), the applicants duly submitted representations to the Respondent No.1 on different dates starting from November 2018, seeking stepping-up of their pay to that of their respective juniors for rectification of the said anomaly and for payment of arrears (Annexure A2). The Respondent No.1 accordingly issued a letter dated 05.01.2021 to the Respondent No. 2, pointing out the anomaly that had arisen, enclosing comparative statements of pay, and requesting that the necessary orders for rectification be passed (Annexure A3). The same is reproduced as follows:
S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30'
7 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH "No.Pr.AG(Au-I)/AdmnII/A5/PR Cell/2020-21/112.
Dated 05.01.2021 To, The Comptroller & Auditor General of India, 9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, Marg, New Delhi-110124.
(Kind attention: Shri Venkatanathan V.S, Asst.Comptroller and Auditor General (N)) Sub: Rectification of anomaly in pay arising in Sr. Audit Officer's cadre as a result of juniors promoted after the implementation of recommendations of Seventh Pay Commission and their pay fixed under FR 22 (1) (a) (1).
Ref: Government of India, DOPT OM No.4/3/20 17-Estt(Pay-1) dated 26.10.2018-Stepping up of pay-Consolidated guidelines-reg.
Sir, I am to invite a reference to Government of India DOPT OM dated 26.10.2018 on the above subject and to state that consequent on revision of pay scales as per 7th Pay Commission recommendations anomaly in pay has arisen in the Sr. Audit Officer's cadre as a result of the junior promoted after 01.01.2016 and exercising option under FR 22 (I) (a) (1) for fixation of pay in Level 10 of the Pay Matrix with effect from the date of next increment in the lower post of Audit Officer whereas the senior was promoted before 01.01.2016 and the pay was fixed in Level 10 of the Pay Matrix with effect from 01.01.2016.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI
15:35:06
+05'30'
8 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
The following is the list of officers of this office belonging to the Sr. Audit Officer's cadre in whose case the anomaly arises:
Batch-I Batch-II
1. Beena Thomas, Sr. Audit
1. Maragathavalli M, Sr. Audit Officer Officer
2. Sahadevan K.V, Sr.Audit Officer 2. Sanjeev C, Sr. Audit Officer
3. Mallappa Khanapurkar, Sr.Audit 3. Prabha M.R. Sr.Audit Officer Officer Common junior: Suresh K, Common Junior Malini Purohit, Sr. Sr.Audit Officer Audit Officer Batch-III Batch-IV
1. Madhavi P. Sr.Audit Officer 1.Narayanan K. Namboothiri,
2.Nirmala H., Sr.Audit Officer Sr.Audit Officer
3.Padma M., Sr.Audit Officer 2.Raghavendra S, Sr.Audit
4.Ravi S., Sr.Audit Officer Officer
5.GajananN Bedekar, Sr.Audit Officer 3.Ravikumar U, Sr.Audit Officer
6.Likesha N. Sr.Audit Officer 4.Rama M, Sr.Audit Officer
7.Raghavendra B.M., Sr.Audit Officer 5.Shamasundra S, Sr.Audit
8.Sujatha V, Sr.Audit Officer Officer Common junior: Kariappa K.S. 6.Ashwini S, Sr.Audit Officer Sr.Audit Officer 7.Ramalakshmi M.V.S., Sr.Audit Officer Common junior: Kavitha B, Sr.Audit Officer Batch-V
1.Kunhiraman P.V. Sr.Audit Officer
2.Meena P.V. Sr.Audit Officer
3.Srikanth G. Sr.Audit Officer
4.Lakshmi A.N. Sr.Audit Officer
5.Syamasundra K. Sr.Audit Officer Common junior: Bharathi A.S. Sr.Audit Officer In all the above cases anomaly has arisen solely as a result of promotion to the cadre of Sr. Audit Officer of senior before 01.01.2016 and junior after 01.01.2016 and the junior exercising option under FR 22 (1) (a) (1) for fixation of pay in Level 10 of the S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 9 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Pay Matrix with effect from the date of next increment in the lower post of Audit Officer i.e 01.07.2016. Rectification is being sought w.r.t the first junior with whom anomaly has arisen. Comparative individual statements of pay showing the details of pay drawn by both the senior and junior from their date of appointment till date is enclosed.
Necessary orders for rectifying the anomaly in pay may please be issued.
This issues with the approval of Pr. Accountant General (Au-I)."
3. The Respondent No. 2, vide its letter dated 12.02.2021 directed the Respondent No. 1 to furnish detailed information in the proper format (Annexure A4), stated as follows:
"To, Date:12 FEB 2021 The Pr.Accountant General (Audit)-1, Karnataka, Bengaluru-560001.
Subject: Rectification for anomaly in the pay arising in Sr.AO's cadre as a result of juniors promoted after the implementation of recommendations of Seventh Pay Commission and their pay fixed under FR 22(1)(a)(1)-reg.
Madam,
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI 15:35:06
+05'30'
10 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
I am directed to invite a reference to your office letter No.Pr.AG(Au-1)/AdmnIl/A5/PRCell/2020-21/112, dated 05.01.2021 on the subject mentioned above.
2. It is intimated that on examining the proposal the following has been noticed:
(i) The proposal has been sent without mentioning the dates of anomaly since it appears that the anomaly has been arising on different dates in different cases. The same is required to be examined by the field office and then only to be sent to Headquarters for further examination along with all details of anomaly & facts regarding grant of Qualification Pay and Special Pay along with date of passing of SOGE and other examinations, if any.
(ii) Further, the certificate of first junior is not in correct format.
Office simply furnished that "Certified that Junior (Name) is the first junior w.r.t. whom anomaly arises" however the same is required in the format certifying that "a particular official (Name of Junior with whom anomaly arises) is first junior to the concerned senior (Name of senior) in the cadre in which anomaly arises" for further examination of the proposal."
4. In response to the above, the Respondent No.1 vide letters dated 09.02.2021 and 16.03.2021 duly submitted the revised comparative statements as requested for, by the Respondent No. 2, again seeking S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 11 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH necessary orders for rectification of the anomaly in pay (Annexures A5 and A6), which is reproduced as follows:
Annexure A5 dated 09.02.2021.
"No.Pr.AG(Au-I)/AdmnII/A5/PRCell/2020-21/126 Dated 09.02.2021 To, The Comptroller & Auditor General of India, 9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi -110124.
(Kind attention: Shri Venkatanathan V.S. Asst. Comptroller and Auditor General (N)).
Sub: Rectification of anomaly in pay arising in Sr. Audit Officer's cadre as a result of juniors promoted after the implementation of recommendations of Seventh Pay Commission and their pay fixed under FR 22 (1) (a) (1).
Ref: 1. CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 issued vide Government of India Gazette notification dated 25.07.2016.
2. This office letter No.Pr.AG(Au-1)/AdmnII/A5/PR Cell/2020-21/112 Dated 05.01.2021. Sir.
I am to invite a reference to this office letter No.Pr.AG(Au-
1)/Admnll/A5/PR Cell/2020-21/112 Dated 05.01.2021 and to state S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30'
12 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH that Government of India DOPT OM No. 4/3/2017-Estu(Pay-1) dated 26.10.2018 was inadvertently referred to as the matter is related to rectification of anomaly in pay of a Sr. Audit Officer promoted before 01.01.2016 drawing lower pay than a junior promoted as Sr. Audit Officer after 01.01.2016.
Hence, it is now requested that sanction may kindly be accorded for the rectification of pay as stated above as per Rule 7 sub rule 10 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 issued vide Government of India Gazette notification dated 25.07.2016.
Necessary orders for rectifying the anomaly in pay may please be issued.
This issues with the approval of Pr.Accountant General (Au-l)."
Annexure A6 dated 16.03.2021.
"No.Pr.AG(Au-1)/AdmnlI/A5/PR Cell/2020-21/134.
Dated16.03.2021 To, The Comptroller & Auditor General of India,
9. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi-110124.
Sir.
(Kind attention: Shri Venkatanathan V.S, Asst.Comptroller and Auditor General (N)) Sub: Rectification of anomaly in pay arising in Sr. Audit Officer's cadre as a result of juniors promoted after the implementation of recommendations of Seventh Pay S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30'
13 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Commission and their pay fixed under FR 22 (1) (a) (1). Ref: 1. This office letter No.Pr.AG(Au-1)/AdmnlI/A5/PR Cell/2020-21/112 dated 05.01.2021.
2. This office letter No.Pr.AG(Au-1)/AdmnII/A5/PR Cell/2020-21/126 dated 09.02.2021.
3. Headquarters Letter No.186/Staff Entt-1/68-2021 dated 12.02.2021.
Sir, I am to invite a reference this office letters dated 05.01.2021 and 09.02.2021 on the above subject and to state that revised comparative statements as prescribed vide Headquarters Letter No. 186/Staff Entt-1/68-2021 dated 12.02.2021 are sent herewith.
Necessary orders for rectifying the anomaly in pay may please be issued.
This issues with the approval of Pr. Accountant General (Au-
1)."
5. The Respondent No. 2 vide its letter dated 17.08.2021, directed the Respondent No. 1 to reexamine the proposal in the light of certain discrepancies observed and requested for clarifications regarding the difference in pay between the applicants and their juniors prior to their appointment as Audit Officers (Annexure A7) and stated as follows:
S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 14 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH "Date 17.08.2021 To The Pr. Accountant General (Audit)-I, Karnataka, Bengaluru-560001.
Subject: Rectification for anomaly in the pay arising in Sr.AO's cadre as a result of juniors promoted after the implementation of recommendations of Seventh Pay Commission and their pay fixed under FR 22(1)(a)(I)-reg.
Madam, I am directed to invite a reference to your office letter No.Pr.AG(Au-I)/AdmnII/A5/PRCell/2020-21/134, dated 16.03.2021 on the subject mentioned above.
2. The proposal has been examined and the discrepancies/observation noticed and the remarks thereon are indicated in the Annexure enclosed herewith.
3. It is therefore, requested to please
(i) Re-examine the proposal in light of the same and take necessary action accordingly.
(ii) Furnish the required clarification sought for further examination of the proposal at this end.
4. As regards the remaining cases not mentioned in the enclosed annexure, the status/communication in this regard shall be conveyed shortly."
6. The Respondent No.1 in its response dated 16.09.2021 duly clarified for that the purpose of stepping-up of pay, the comparison of pay S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 15 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH drawn by the senior vis-à-vis his/her junior in the lower cadres prior to appointment as Audit Officers would not arise and once again requested for necessary sanction orders for rectifying the anomaly in pay for the Applicants (Annexure A8).
"No.Pr.AG(Au.I)/AdmnII/Ar/PR Cell/2021-22/21 Dated 16.09.2021 To The Comptroller & Auditor General of India, 9, Deen dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi -110124.
(Kind attention: Ms.Supriya Singh, Asst. Comptroller and Auditor General (N)) Sub: Rectification of anomaly in pay arising in Sr. Audit Officer's cadre as a result of juniors promoted after the implementation of recommendations of Seventh Pay Commission and their pay fixed under FR 22 (1) (a) (1).
Ref: Hqrs Office letter No.618-Staff Entt-1/68-2021 dated 17.08.2021.
******** Madam.
I am to invite a reference to Headquarters Office letter No.618-Staff Entt-1/68-2021 dated 17.08.2021 on the above subject and to state that proposals have been re-examined and the following is submitted herewith:-
S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30'
16 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH The issue is related to the rectification of anomaly in pay of a senior promoted to the Sr.AO cadre before 01.01.2016 with reference to junior promoted to the St.AO cadre after 01.01.2016. Senior Government servant promoted to a higher post of Sr.AG before the 1st day of January, 2016 started drawing less pay in the revised pay structure than his junior who was promoted to the higher post of Sr.AO on or after the 1st day of January 2016. The anomaly is directly as a result of the application of the provisions of Fundamental Rule 22 or any other rule or order regulating pay fixation on such promotion of a junior in the revised pay structure. The stepping up of pay of senior up to an amount equal to the pay as fixed for his junior in the higher post of Sr.AO was sought under sub Rule 10 of Rule 7 of CC'S (RP) Rules, 2016 as the senior was drawing equal or more pay from time to time than the junior in AD cadre before the junior's promotion to the higher post of Sr.AO. The comparative statement had been prepared from the date of appointment till date only to establish that both the officers were on equal footing and also after ascertaining that all the conditions laid down under FR 22 and CCS (RP) Rules, 2016 have been satisfied for such stepping up of pay (Sub Rule 10 (i) (d) of Rule 7 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016). The Government of India vide their OM dated 16.06.1989 have also clarified that the anomaly can be said to exist only if senior employee, drawing equal or more pay than his junior in the lower post and promoted earlier, starts drawing less pay than such junior promoted later on regular basis (Copy enclosed).
Hence for the purpose of stepping up of pay, the comparison of pay drawn by senior vis-a-vis his/her junior in the lower cadres below that of AO does not arise under FR. 22 as explained above.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI
15:35:06
+05'30'
17 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
As regards discrepancies/observations noticed in the Annexure, the same have been corrected and a revised comparative statement enclosed. Further the clarification sought for further examination at your end has been explained in the Annexure enclosed herewith, Hence, it is again requested that sanction may kindly be accorded for the rectification of pay as stated above as per Rule 7 sub rule 10 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 issued vide Government of India Gazette notification dated 25.07.2016.
Necessary orders for rectifying the anomaly in pay may please be issued.
This issues with the approval of Pr.Accountant General (Au- I)."
7. The Respondent No.2 issued a response dated 25.01.2022 enclosing a checklist and calling upon the Respondent No.1 to re-examine the proposal and furnish the necessary information (Annexure A9), states as follows.
"Date: 25 JAN 22 To The Pr. Accountant General (Audit)-I, Karnataka, Bengaluru-560001.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI 15:35:06
+05'30'
18 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Subject: Rectification for anomaly in the pay arising in Sr.AO's cadre as a result of juniors promoted after the implementation of recommendations of Seventh Pay Commission and their pay fixed under FR 22(1)(a)(1)-reg. Madam, I am directed to invite a reference to your office letter No.Pr.AG(Au-I)/AdmnII/A5/PR Cell/2021-22/21, dated 16.09.2021 on the subject mentioned above.
2. The proposal has been examined and the discrepancies/ observation noticed and the remarks thereon are indicated in the Annexure enclosed herewith.
3. I am further directed to enclose a copy of checklist for sending proposal for rectification of anomaly with a request to examine the matter in light of checklist enclosed herewith.
4. It is therefore, requested to please
(i) Re-examine the proposal in light of the same and take necessary action accordingly.
(ii) Furnish the information required for further examination of the proposal at this end.
Annexure-I .. .. .. Remarks on Reply
1. .. .. As per para 3(e) of DoPT OM dated 26.10.2018 which state that 3(e): If a senior is appointed later than the junior in the lower post itself whereby he is in receipt of lesser pay than the junior, in such cases also the S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 19 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH senior cannot claim pay parity in the higher post if he draws less pay than his junior though he may have been promoted earlier to the higher post.
And under provision of FR 22 as already intimated to the office vide HQrs. Letter dated 17/08/2021, the instant case is not fit for rectification of Anomaly. Hence status quo may please be maintained.
16 .. .. The pay of both officials i.e. senior & junior had already stepped up on 01.04.1996 in the cadre of Sr. Auditor with different juniors.
Hence, as per GIO 20 under FR 22 stepping up of pay of senior for a second time in order to remove an anomaly in pay vis-a-vis same junior is admissible and the first junior only ceases to exist when junior is not in service due to retirement/resignation/death/promotion of junior to higher post or if the junior is not promoted to the cadre in which the senior is promoted and presently officiating.
The instant proposal is not fit for rectification." (Quote: only a few paras of the table included for illustration purpose/relevance) "Checklist- Annexure-I Rectification of Anomaly case
a) The proposal for stepping up/ Rectification of anomaly is to be examined in light of OMNo.4/3/2017, Estt(Pay-1), dated 26.10.2018. The proposal is to be sent to Headquarters while mentioning the reason and date of anomaly along with the extant provisions, scope of their applicability in the concerned case and S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 20 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH office views and recommendation in this regard. The date where the anomaly is arising is to be shown in bold letters in the pay statement.
b) The proposal for rectification of anomaly is to be sent invariably alongwith the comparative pay fixation statement separately for each senior with respect to his first junior showing side by side the details of the pay drawn right from joining service alongwith other service details such as grant of DNI'S, MACP/NFU/Promotion etc. by both the officials and comparative pay drawn by the officials on those dates in each and every row which may be furnished in the following format devoid of any error:
SENIOR JUNIOR (Name of the senior official Gradation list (Name of the junior official with whom the anomaly No. arises & stepping up is proposed).
Date of Birth Gradation list No./Date of Birth
Events/ Date Pay Pay Rem Events/ Date Pay Pay Remar
Appoint Scales arks Appoin Scales ks
ment/ Where tment/ where
Promo requir promo- requir
tion ed Pay/ Level tion ed Pay/ Level
GP GP
c) Where the stepping up of more than one senior with reference to a common junior is proposed, in such case, separate comparative pay fixation statement in respect of each senior with reference to the junior is to be enclosed.
d) The name of the senior and the junior officials must be correctly mentioned in the forwarding letter and in the comparative pay statement.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI 15:35:06
+05'30'
21 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
e) The pay drawn by the senior official on every DNI, grant of advance increments on account of passing an examination etc, indicating the pay that the junior official was drawing as on that date and vice versa, year wise has to be indicated.
f) The pay statement should indicate the revised pay from time to time as per the CPC prevailing at that time and the upgraded pay scales from 01.01.1996 as per O.M dated 28.02.2003 are to be indicated.
g) The pay in the pay band and Grade pay, where required, are to be shown separately and not aggregate of the same since it leads to intricacy in examining the regulation of pay.
h) Certificate of 'first junior' is essential for examining the proposal for rectification of anomaly so that the actual first junior is correctly identified and not overlooked. The same is required in the format "a particular official (Name of Junior with whom anomaly arises) is first junior to the concerned senior (Name of senior)". Further, at times it is seen that offices are mixed up with 'first junior" and "immediate junior. In this regard it is clarified that the first junior need not be the immediate junior. The first junior is the one is the junior with whom the anomaly is first arising in the pay of the senior and he/she may not necessarily be the 'immediate junior'.
i) The options exercised by the concerned officials, in terms of FR 22 (1) (a) (1) and Rule 13 CCS(RP) Rules 2008/2016 for fixation of pay on promotion, grant of MACP, NFU etc. whether the official had opted for fixation on date of such financial upgradation or S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 22 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH from the of DNI of the lower post/Pay scale/Grade Pay/Level is to be clearly mentioned.
j) The exact date of passing DCT. SOGE etc should be indicated clearly while also indicating the correct and revised rates, from time to time, prevailing on the given dates as per recommendation of relevant CPC in vogue, of Qualification Pay SOGE Special pay/Allowance clearly for the 1 year of waiting and 2nd year onwards, right from date of passing such examinations.
k) Where any pre-mature increment, additional increment has been given the details of the same is to be mentioned.
l) Where the pay of the senior official or the junior official has been stepped up in the past, details of such stepping is to be invariably mentioned such as reason for stepping up, name of the junior, copy of Headquarters sanction letter etc. and while also mentioning whether on the date of recent anomaly, the said earlier junior existed in the given cadre or still in service or promoted and the reason for not proposing stepping up with reference to the earlier junior.
m) Where the DNI of the senior has been pre-poned at par with a junior, the fact of such same must be clearly indicated to the effect that whether the same was a case of ante-dation done Consequent to introduction of the relevant CPC and the provisions provided therein or the same was rectification of pay for removing anomaly, if so, copy of Headquarters' sanction letter is to be enclosed.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI
15:35:06
+05'30'
23 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
n) The events of passing Incentive/RAE/ CPD etc. examinations to be clearly mentioned alongwith the additional increment granted. Further, it is to be specifically mentioned whether both the seniors and the juniors w.r.t whom the rectification of the anomaly has been sought have passed the same exams i.e., Incentive/RAE/CPD etc. from time to time and they are similarly placed or not.
o) If a junior has been appointed/promoted earlier than a junior in a given cadre, reason/details of the same are to be mentioned alongwith extant provisions in this regard.
p) In cases of period of suspension, penalty, dies-non, EOL etc is intervening the period of anomaly, and if the pay or the DNI of the official has been affected/postponed due to such events, in such case the particulars of the same has to be clearly mentioned alongwith the facts of the matter in brief and the views/recommendations of the office in this regard while mentioning the extant provisions for such views/recommendations.
q) Where ACP/MACP has been granted, it is to be clearly indicated whether it is 1/2 ACP or 1/2/3 MACP and the date from which the same has been counted.
r) The checklist (as per Annexure-II) duly filled to be sent alongwith proposal for examining the case of rectification of Anomaly thoroughly.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI
15:35:06
+05'30'
24 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Annexure II
CHECK LIST FOR CASES OF STEPPING UP OF PAY Sl.No. Details Required as per Check List Remarks
(i) Date of Anomaly
(ii) Cadre/Post in which anomaly arisen
(iii) Primary reason for Stepping up/Rule/Provision
(iv) Whether the condition of stepping up fulfilled in terms of OM No.4/3/2017, Estt(Pay-I), dated 26.10.2018. If no, which condition is not fulfilled
(v) Comparative pay fixation Comparative pay statements in statements of both the employees
(vi) Whether Senior and Junior belong to same cadre on the date of Anomaly
(vii) Whether the pay scale/Level/Pay Band-GP of lower and higher post of both employees is identical
(viii) Certificate of first junior attached
(ix) Any other Remarks pertaining to the case
8. In its reply (Annexure A10) the Respondent No.1 pointed out that the DOPT Office Memorandum dated 26.10.2018 was not applicable to the S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 25 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH case of the applicants, as it concerned persons promoted on or after 01.01.2016. The letter dated 13.04.2022 (Annexure A10) issued by the Respondent No. 1 to the Respondent No. 2 is extracted herewith:
"No. Pr.AG (Au-1)/Admn-11/A.5/PRCell/2022-23/06 Date: 13.04.2022 To.
The Assistant Comptroller and Auditor General (N), Olo Comptroller and Auditor General of India, No.9, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg. New Delhi-110 124.
Sir.
Subject: Rectification of anomaly due to application of the provisions of FR 22.
Reference: Hqrs' office letter No. 56-Staff Entt-1/68-2021 dated 25.01.2022.
I am to invite a reference to Headquarters' Office letter dated 25.01.2022 on the above subject and to state that proposals have been re-examined and the following is submitted:
According to sub Rule 10 under Rule 7 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016, "(i) In cases where a senior Government servant promoted to a higher post before the 1 day of January, 2016 draws less pay in the revised pay structure than his junior who is promoted to the said higher post on or after the 1 day of January 2016, the pay of the senior S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 26 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Government servant in the revised pay structure shall be stepped up to an amount equal to the pay as fixed for his/her junior in that higher post and such stepping up shall be done with effect from the date of promotion of the junior Government servant, subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions, namely:-
a) both the junior and the senior Government servants belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted are identical in the same cadre;
b) the existing pay structure and the revised pay structure of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay are identical;
c) the senior Government servants at the time of promotion are drawing equal or more pay than the junior:
d) the anomaly is directly as a result of the application of the provisions of FR 22 or any other rule or order regulating pay fixation on such promotion in the revised pay structure.
Provided that 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 shall not be invoked to step up the pay of the senior officer."
In the 18 cases of anomaly under consideration, the Senior Government servant promoted to a higher post of Sr.AO prior to 1 S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 27 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH day of January 2016 started drawing less pay in the revised pay structure than his/her junior who was promoted to the said higher post of Sr.AO on or after the 1 day of January 2016. A thorough comparison of all conditions of service between the senior and his/her junior Government Servant in each of these cases has revealed that this anomaly is directly as a result of the application of the provisions of FR 22 or any other rule or order regulating pay fixation on such promotion of the junior in the revised pay structure (vile 7th CPC). These cases also satisfy all other conditions Ibid stipulated under sub rule 10 of Rule 7 for stepping up.
In the letter of Hors Office cited under reference, a reference was invited to the OM issued by the DoPT, MoPPG&P, Government of India vide No.4/3/2017-Est(Pay-1) dated 26.10.2018. The OM was issued for the purpose of consolidating all the guidelines issued thus far for stepping-up of pay of a Government servant promoted or appointed to a higher post, specifically covering the stepping-up of pay of Government servant promoted or appointed to a higher post on or after 01.01.2016 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 (Para2(1)]. However, it is submitted that this OM is not at all applicable in the instant cases referred to Hqrs' office, since the said OM deals with cases where both the senior Government Servant and the junior S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 28 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Government servant are promoted or appointed to a higher post on or after 01.01.2016. On the other hand, the cases under consideration are those where the senior Government Servant was promoted or appointed to the higher post of Sr.AO prior to 01.01.2016 and the junior Government Servant was promoted or appointed to the said post on or after 01.01.2016 with a higher pay fixation as per provisions of FR 22.
Hence, the stepping up of pay of senior up to an amount equal to the pay as fixed for his/her junior in the higher post of Sr.AO was sought under sub Rule 10 of Rule 7 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016 as the senior was drawing equal or more pay from time to time than the junior while both were in AO cadre (i.c., pre-promotion cadre).
Further, in the statement of fixation of pay under CCS (RP) Rules, 2016 issued as Annexure to OM No. 1-5/2016-IC dated 01.08.2016, a provision was made in Sl. No. 11 for stepping up of pay with reference to pay of junior. However, the same could not be carried during the implementation of Seventh Central Pay Commission report due to paucity of time and also such stepping up of pay had to be carried out as per FR 27 which required the sanction of Headquarters office.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI
15:35:06
+05'30'
29 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
As regards checklist for the stepping up of pay, the necessary details have been filled up in each individual case after re-examining the proposals as directed in the Hqrs' letter cited.
It is reiterated that the comparative statements of the Senior and the Junior Government Servants in the cases under consideration had been prepared from the date of appointment till the date of arising of anomaly in pay only to establish that both the officers are on equal footing and to highlight the fact that there are no disciplinary issues in respect of both the Officers. However, it is submitted that in the instant cases, comparing the pay drawn in the cadres lower than that of Audit Officer does not arise.
Hence, it is requested that sanction may kindly be accorded at the earliest for stepping-up of pay of 18 Senior Officers on par with that of their juniors as per sub rule 10 of Rule 7 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 to enable this office to issue necessary orders under FR 27. This issues with the approval of Pr. Accountant General (Audit-
1).
sd/-
Sr. Deputy Accountant General (Admn)"
9. However, the Respondent No. 2 vide its response dated 17.06.2022, raised an objection in the case of the applicant No.13, alleging that the S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 30 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH applicant No.13 and the junior in respect of whom the comparison statement had been provided were not similarly placed prior to their appointment as Audit Officers (Annexure A11).
"To, 17 JUN 2022 Pr.Accountant General (Audit)-1, Karnataka, Bengaluru-560001.
Subject: Rectification for anomaly in the pay arising in Sr.AO's cadre juniors promoted after the implementation of recommendations of Seventh Pay Commission and their pay fixed under FR 22(1)(a)(1) -reg Madam, I am directed to invite a reference to your office letter No.Pr.AG(Au-I)/AdmnII/A5/PR Cell/2022-23/06, dated 13.04.2022 on the subject mentioned above.
2. The proposal has been examined and it is intimated that
(i) The proposal in respect of Sh. Kunhiraman PV, Sr.AO w.r.t, his junior Smt. Bharathi A S has been examined and it is noticed that junior Smt. Bharthi was appointed as Auditor on 26.03.1990 and further promoted as Sr. Auditor on 03.01.1994 & has also cleared Incentive Exam for Sr.Ar and his pay also stepped up @Rs.5850/- w.r.t. her junior in Sr.Ar cadre. Hence on promotion as SO i.e. on 19.06.2000, his pay was fixed at the higher stage i.e. Rs.6700/- whereas senior Sh. Kunhiraman was appointed as Steno on 21.01.1987 and further directly promoted as SO on 05.08.1996 from the post of Steno, accordingly his pay was fixed at the minimum stage i.e. Rs.6500/-.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI 15:35:06
+05'30'
31 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Hence, it is pertinent to mention that both junior and senior are not similarly placed for rectification of anomaly as one of the conditions for rectification of anomaly under FR 22 i.e." The scales of pay of the lower and higher post in which the junior and senior officer are entitled to draw pay should be identical" is breached.
It is also seen that due to different service conditions junior was drawing higher pay than senior from time to time. i.e., on 01.04.1996 Junior Rs. 1480/- and Senior Rs. 1440/- on 01.01.1996 Junior Rs.5675/- and Senior Rs.4500/- on 01.04.1996 Junior Rs.5850/- and Senior Rs.4500/-
Hence the proposal need to be re-examined in light of the same.
(ii) Further it is stated that the observations noticed and the remarks thereon in respect of remaining 17 proposals has already been conveyed in annexure-1 vide HQrs letter dated 25.01.2022 for necessary action at your end. Hence status quo may be maintained.
3. It is therefore, requested to please re-examine the proposal in light of para 2 above and take necessary action accordingly."
10. The Respondent No.1, in its response dated 08.09.2022 to the Respondent No.2, duly reiterated that the scales of pay lower to the post of Audit Officer would not be relevant and reiterated its request for sanction of stepping-up of pay for the Applicants (Annexure A12).
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI 15:35:06
+05'30'
32 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
"To, Dated 08.09.2022
The Assistant Comptroller and Auditor General (N), O/o Comptroller and Auditor General of India, No. 9. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg, New Delhi-110 124.
Sub: Rectification of anomaly in pay arising in Sr. Audit Officer's cadre because of juniors promoted after the implementation of recommendations of 7th CPC and their pay fixed under FR 22(1)(a)(1).
Ref: Headquarters letter no. 242/Staff Enti-1/68-2021 dated 17.06.2022.
Sir.
A reference is invited to the letter cited above wherein this Office was asked to re-examine the proposal for rectification, of anomaly. In this regard, the events so far, are brought out as follow
(i) This office had forwarded a proposal dated 05.01.2021 for stepping up of pay in respect of 26 Sr. AOs. This proposal was made citing DOPT OM dated 26.10.2018 which was not relevant to the case. Realising the inadvertent error, this office had sent a revised proposal on 9.2.2021 citing the relevant provision i.e., sub rule 10 under Rule 7 of CCS (RP) Rules 2016 which was in line with the representations made by the aggrieved officers.
(ii) Headquarters office vide letter dated 17.8.2021 returned back 22 cases with remarks and for re-examination (4 cases were approved vide letter dated 8.9.2021). The 22 cases were re-examined and forwarded to Headquarters ón 16.9.2021 for approval under sub rule 10 of rule 7 of CCS (RP) Rules 2016 which is the relevant provision S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 33 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
(iii) Headquarters office vide letter dated 25.1.2022 returned, back 18 cases with remarks citing the provisions of DOPT OM dated 26.10.2018 and this office was again asked to re-examine the proposals in the light of the remarks (3 cases were approved vide letter dated 7.3.2022).
(iv) The 18 cases were re-examined and forwarded to Headquarters on 13.4.2022 with a request to examine the cases under sub rule 10 of rule 7 of CCS (RP) Rules 2016 and approve the proposals.
(v) However, Headquarters vide letter under reference once again returned the proposals reiterating the remarks communicated vide letter dated 25.1.2022 and to again re-examine the same.
It is now submitted that the proposals in respect of 17 cases have been re-examined and the following is brought out for your perusal and consideration.
The cases under consideration, the details of which have already been furnished, fall squarely under the ambit of the sub-rule 10 of Rule 7 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016 viz. the Junior Officer must be promoted on or after 01.01.2016 while the Senior Officer had already been promoted before 01.01.2016 and the anomaly must be solely as a result of fixation of pay in the 7th CPC regime as per provisions of FR 22(1)(a)(1). This office is of the opinion that the claim of the officers for stepping up of pay is in order. It is also reiterated that the provisions of OM dated 26.10.2018 are not applicable in respect of the above cases.
As regards the proposal of Shri Kunhiraman PV, Sr.AO w.r.t. his junior Smt. Bharathi AS, Sr.AO, it has been observed by S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 34 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH headquarters office vide letter cited under reference that both the officers are not similarly placed and it has breached the conditions for rectification of anomaly under FR 22.
In this regard it is submitted that the observations contradict the Headquarters circular no. 23-Staff Wing/2016 No. 39-Staff (Entt-
1)/184-2014 dated 20.6.2016 wherein it has been decided that the appointment of SAS qualified persons to be post of AAO shall be treated as direct recruitment for the purpose of grant of benefits like ACP/MACP Scheme. Also, the scales of pay of lower post of Audit Officer (Level 09 in the pay matrix) and the higher post of Senior Audit Officer (Level 10 in the pay matrix) of both the Senior and Junior officers are identical in nature.
Further, in this instant case, the provisions of OM dated 26.10.2018 are not applicable and this proposal also needs to be examined under sub-rule 10 of Rule 7 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016.
An example to highlight the fact that the anomaly has arisen directly and solely as a result of the application of provisions of FR 22 in the revised pay structure (vide 7th CPC) is explained below:
Comparative statement of pay of Smt.Margathavalli with Smt.Malini Purohit Malini Purohit Margathavalli M Date/Event Pay drawn in Pay Remarks Date/Event Pay drawn Pay Remarks 6th CPC drawn in 6th CPC drawn in 7th in 7th CPC CPC 01.01.2016 23460+5400 75600 7th CPC 01.01.2016 24400+5400 77700 7th CPC Level 9 Level 10 (PB-2) (PB-3) S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30'
35 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH 01.04.2016 23460+5400 77700 Promoted 01.04.2016 24400+5400 77700 as Sr.AO (PB-3) (PB-3) 01.07.2016 25230+5400 82400 Opted for 01.07.2016 25300+5400 80000 Anomaly fixation arises (PB-3) from DNI (PB-3) in the lower post of Audit Officer It is therefore requested to accord sanction for the stepping up of pay of the senior on par with the pay of the junior as per sub-rule 10 of Rule 7 of CCS(RP) Rules, 2016 and allow the rectification of the anomaly in all these 18 cases.
Necessary orders for rectifying the anomaly in pay may please be issued.
This issues with the approval of Pr. Accountant General (Audit I)."
11. However, the Respondent No. 2 vide its letter dated 18.10.2022 refused to reconsider the issue (Annexure A13).
"To, 18 OCT 2022
Pr.Accountant General (Audit)-1
Karnataka,
Bengaluru-560001
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI 15:35:06
+05'30'
36 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Subject: Rectification for anomaly in the pay arising in Sr.AO's cadre as a result of juniors promoted after the implementation of recommendations of Seventh Pay Commission and their pay fixed under FR 22(1)(a)(1) -reg.
Madam, I am directed to invite a reference to your office letter No.Pr.AG(Au-
1)/AdmnII/A5/PR Cell/ 2022-23/62, dated 08.09.2022 & Email dated 15.06.2022 on the subject mentioned above.
2. The proposal has been examined and it is intimated that
(i) The proposals have been examined and no new observation has been noticed in the 18 proposals. In this regard clarification has already been sent vide HQrs letter dated 25.01.2022 & 13.04.2022. Hence status quo may please be maintained. Further in the maximum proposals, this office's observation/contention was the same that as per provision under F.R 22" if a senior is appointed later than the junior in the lower post itself whereby he is in receipt of lesser pay than the junior, in such cases also the senior cannot claim pay parity in the higher post though he may have been promoted earlier to the higher post" which is clearly specified the fact. Such anomalies are not rectifiable under either the F.Rs or the Rule 10 (i) of CCS (RP) Rules 2016 and the proviso given thereunder.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI
15:35:06
+05'30'
37 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Further Rule 10 alone does not qualify for implementation or rectification. Provision of relevant FR also needs to be fulfilled first to further impose Rule 10 or make the same operative, depending upon specifics of a case.
(ii) DoPT vide their OM dated 26.10.2018 has issued consolidated guidelines on stepping up of pay at one place keeping in view the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016. The proposals of anomaly are examined in light of the same as earlier OM issued in this regard has been superseded and the said OM is effective from 01.01.2016. However, the basic conditions for rectification of anomaly was not effected/ changed hence analogy has to be drawn read with FRs.
(iii) It is also pertinent to mention that the Headquarters circular dated 20.06.2016 is -explanatory as already specified by your office. As per the said circular the ppointment of SAS qualified persons to the post of AAO shall be treated as direct recruitment for the purpose of grant of benefits under ACP/MACP Scheme only whereas the instant case is related with stepping up of the pay in order to remove pay anomaly for which basic conditions of FR are to be fulfilled. Hence your office recommendation cannot be acceded to.
3. It is therefore, requested to please re-examine the proposal in light of the same and take necessary action accordingly."
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI
15:35:06
+05'30'
38 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
12. According to learned Counsel for applicant, despite detailed clarifications issued by Respondent No.1, Respondent No.2 without any application of mind, issued the Impugned Endorsement dated 21.11.2022 arbitrarily rejecting the applicants' request for stepping-up of pay, on the vague ground that the conditions of the FR were not fulfilled. The learned Counsel for applicants submits that the Impugned Endorsement is a non-
speaking order as it does not specify how the Applicants did not satisfy the conditions of the FR, or what conditions of the FR were not satisfied by the applicants. The learned Counsel for applicants reiterates that the applicants are entitled to stepping-up of pay under Rule 7(10) of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, satisfying all the conditions as reiterated below:
a. Promoted to the post of Senior Audit Officer ('Higher Post') prior to 01.01.2016;
b. Promoted to the Higher Post from the post of Audit Officer ('Lower Post') before their respective certified first juniors; and c. Were, on the date of their promotion and up to the date of promotion of their respective certified first juniors, drawing the same or higher pay than their respective certified first juniors.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI 15:35:06
+05'30'
39 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
However, solely on account of the Applicants' respective first juniors opting to exercise the option available under Fundamental Rule 22(1)(a)(i) on being promoted to the Higher Post on 01.04.2016, they began drawing equal or higher pay than the Applicants despite having been promoted to the Higher Post after them.
13. The learned Counsel for the applicants further point out that the chronological sequence of the correspondence between Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 i.e., Principal Accountant General, Audit-I, Karnataka and Comptroller and Auditor General (N) of India, is essentially repeated reiteration of their respective positions. It is further averred by the learned Counsel for the applicant that Respondent No.1 has repeatedly provided all relevant information to Respondent No.2, including detailed information as per the Check List requested for, by Respondent No.2 in its letter dated 25.01.2022 (cited as Annexure A9 and Check List is given as Annexure-I) in this reference. It is reiterated by the applicant's Counsel that not only Respondent No.1 provided all relevant information to Respondent No.2, but also given detailed information in tabulated form duly inviting attention of Respondent No.2 to Sub-Rule 10 under Rule 7 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016 S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 40 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH and has repeatedly clarified all doubts. Respondent No.1 has also highlighted in its letter dated 13.04.2022 (Annexure A10) that the OM of DOPT vide No.4/3/2017-Estt(Pay-I) dated 26.10.2018 is not all applicable in these cases, as this OM deals with instances where both the senior Government servants and junior Government servants are promoted on or after 01.01.2016, whereas in this case the senior Government servants were promoted prior to 01.01.2016 and juniors on or after 01.01.2016.
14. Learned Counsel for applicants has also placed reliance on the following two judgments:
1) Union of India and others vs. R.K.Jain reported in 2014 SCC Online Del 3569 -High Court of Delhi
2) N.Krishna Kumar vs. Union of India and others in OA No.213/2022 & 215/2022 dated 19.03.2024 - C.A.T., Bangalore Bench.
15. According to the Counsel for the applicants, in the above two judgments, this Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, have upheld the cases of those who were promoted before 01.01.2016 and have also held that the stipulation, that the junior and senior Government servants should S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 41 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH necessarily belong to the same cadre for the benefit of enhanced pay, is artificial classification and violation of Article 14.
16. The Counsel submits that the applicants' case meets all the requirements under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, and the Applicants are hence entitled for stepping-up of pay. Rule 7 (10) of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 prescribes that at the time of Fixation of pay in the revised pay structure with reference to 7th CPC, cases of anomaly requiring stepping-up of pay of senior with reference to their respective junior's pay fixation shall be dealt with simultaneously, imposing an obligation on the Respondents to do so. However, in the instant case, despite the occurrence of anomaly of seniors' pay at the time of promotion of juniors to the post of Senior Audit Officer after 01.01.2016, directly as a result of the application of provisions of FR 22 (I) (a) (1), the Respondents failed to suo-motu consider and rectify the cases of anomaly in respect of seniors' pay. The change in policy after the implementation of the 7th CPC in the manner of grant of increments has caused a further arbitrary and unfair anomaly in the pay of the applicants in comparison to their respective juniors. The Respondents No.2 has grossly erred in not applying Rule 7(10) of the CCS S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 42 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, without any sufficient t grounds. It has failed to note that the Applicants fulfil all the requirements of Rule 7(10) of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules. 2016. The learned Counsel submits that the Respondent No.1 in its letter dated 05.01.2021, without application of mind referred to an irrelevant Office Memorandum dated 26.10.2018 and also prepared the comparative statements in each Applicant's case by incorrectly taking into account the date of entry into Government service of the senior and their respective junior, thereby prejudicing the Applicants' case. The Respondent No. 2 also relied on these incorrect comparative statements as the basis for its rejection of the recommendation of Respondent No. 1 for stepping up of pay of the Applicants with that of their respective juniors arising on account of anomaly. The seniority cadre of the Petitioners starts from the date of passing of the exam. Respondent No. 2 has failed to take this into consideration and has not granted the proper pay scale for the Petitioners. Even though the Petitioners have attained seniority on the date of passing the exams Respondent No. 2 has not correctly considered the pay scale of the senior and junior Government servants. As a result of the Impugned Endorsement, the Applicants are drawing lesser pay than their S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 43 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH juniors occupying the same post, only on account of the Applicants being promoted prior to 01.01.2016 and their juniors being promoted thereafter (ie., after 01.01.2016).
17. According to the learned Counsel for applicant, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Union of India & Ors. v. R.K. Jain 2014 SCC OnLine Del 3659, has held that it is a settled position of law that the only post to be considered in assessing whether a case is fit for stepping up of pay is the immediately lower post occupied by the "senior" and their corresponding junior prior to promotion to the higher post.
18. Detailed reply statement has been filed by the respondents.
According to the learned Counsel for respondents, the averments are factual except that, in the case of Applicant No.12, Smt. Beena Thomas (Senior) was drawing less pay (Rs. 80000) than Sri. Suresh K, (Junior) Rs.80200) as on 01.01.2016. In conformity with letter dated 12.10.2022, Annexure 13. an endorsement dated 21.11.2022 was issued to the applicants as instructed by the office of CAG, which is impugned by the applicants at Annexure A1. Since the CCS (RP) Rules, 2016 specifically S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 44 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH provided for rectification of anomaly in pay fixation under Rule 7(10), representations were received from the applicants on different dates starting from November 2018, seeking stepping up of their pay on par with their respective juniors for rectification of the anomaly and for payment of arrears. Clarification was sought from headquarters regarding the representations of the applicants seeking stepping up of pay and rectification of anomaly. In its letter, at A3, the office of Respondent No.1 erroneously referred to an unrelated office Memorandum Gol, DOPT's OM No. 4/3/20 17-Estt (Pay-1) dated 26.10.2018 and incorrect comparative statements of the applicants and their junior officers from the date of entry into Government services instead of making a comparison as prescribed under Rule 7(10) of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016. In reply, the Headquarters i.e., Respondent No.2, vide letter dated 12.02.2021, enclosed as A4, requested Respondent No.1 to furnish detailed Annexure information in the proper format.
19. The learned Counsel for Respondents concedes that in compliance, office of the 1st respondent duly clarified vide letter dated 16.09.2021, enclosed as Annexure A8 that, for the purpose of stepping up S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 45 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH of pay, comparison of pay drawn by the senior vis-a-vis his/her junior in the lower cadres prior to the appointment as Audit Officers would not arise. However, Respondent No.2 vide letter dated 25.01.2022, enclosed as Annexure A9, asked the 1st respondent to re-examine the proposal in the light of a check list and to furnish necessary information for further examination of the proposal. Respondent No.1, vide letter dated 13.04.2022 furnished the requested information to headquarters once again, as per Annexure A10 seeking sanction for stepping-up of pay of the Applicants as per Rule 7(10) of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2016 reiterating that the anomaly has arisen as a direct result of the application of the provisions of FR 22 in the revised pay structure under the 7th CPC, and that the applicants satisfied all the conditions under Rule 7(10) of the CCS(RP) Rules, 2016 for stepping-up of pay. It was also pointed out that the Office Memorandum dated 26.10.2018 was not applicable to the case of the applicants, as the persons juniors to the applicants were promoted on or after 01.01.2016.
20. The Respondent No. I vide letter dated 08.09.2022, enclosed as Annexure A12, reiterated that the scales of pay lower to the post of Audit S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 46 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Officer would not be relevant and requested for sanction of stepping up of pay of the applicants. However, Respondent No.2 vide its letter dated 12.10.2022 (Annexure A13), asserted that "if a senior is appointed later than the junior in the lower post itself whereby he is in receipt of lesser pay than the junior, in such cases also the senior cannot claim pay parity in the higher post though he may have been promoted earlier to the higher post" in accordance with para 2(d) of GOI decision 23 under Fundamental Rule 22. Respondent No.2 stated that such anomalies are not rectifiable under either the FRs or Rule 10 (i) of CCS (RP) Rules 2016 or the provision given thereunder as per provision under FR 22. As a result of FR 22 (1) (a) (1) application in the revised scales of CCS(RP) Rules, 2016 In cases where a senior government servant promoted to a higher post before the 1 day of January, 2016 draws less pay in the revised pay structure than his junior who is promoted to the higher post on or after the 1 day of January, 2016, Respondent No.2 reiterated that the pay of senior government servant in the revised pay structure shall be stepped up to an amount equal to the pay as fixed for his junior in that higher post and such stepping up shall be done with effect from the date of promotion of the junior government servant subject to fulfilment of the following conditions, namely:-
a. both the junior and the senior government servants belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted are identical in the same cadre.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI 15:35:06
+05'30'
47 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
b. The existing pay structure and the revised pay structure of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay are identical; c. The senior government servants at the time of promotion are drawing equal or more pay than the junior, d. The anomaly is directly as a result of the application of the provisions of Fundamental Rule 22 or any other rule or order regulating pay fixation on such promotion in the revised pay structure:
Provided that 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 shall not be invoked to step up the pay of the senior officer.
21. The learned Counsel for respondents avers that on detailed examination of the above provisions, it is clear that the applicants do not meet the requirements laid down in any of the provisions. Hence, the applicants are not entitled for stepping up of pay. It is also seen from the comparative tabular statement of headquarters attached to Annexure A9, dated 25.01.2022 that, the juniors and seniors were appointed in different cadres on various dates. It is also seen that the juniors were appointed S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 48 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH earlier than the seniors and hence, the pay of the juniors has been higher by default than the seniors since decades. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, by no stretch of imagination can it be termed as pay anomaly and hence, there is no scope for stepping up of pay of the applicants.
22. The learned Counsel for respondents submits that on examination of the comparative statement at Annexure A9 prepared by Headquarters, reveals that the applicants who are said to be seniors are in fact themselves juniors to the so called juniors earlier, pay wise and service wise from time to time and this being the fact on record, the applicants' contention that, their pay ought to be stepped up on par with juniors is not correct. Moreover, A9 containing the facts and figures in the statement has been filed by the applicants before this Hon'ble Tribunal and on close examination of the contents, it reveals that, the information based on records is not in conformity with the averments and statements made in this application.
S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 49 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
23. We have given thoughtful consideration to the averments and arguments of the learned Counsel for the applicant and the respondents.
We have also carefully gone through all the documents and records including the judgments of the Superior Court, relevant sections and clauses of the rules etc., which were brought on record by the respective Counsels.
24. From the detailed chronological sequence of events and the correspondence between Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2, it appears that the stand taken by Respondent No.1 is in conformity with the case of the applicants. It is clear from the above highlighted correspondence, that the respective first juniors of the applicants exercised the option available to them under Fundamental Rule 22(1)(a)(1) on being promoted to higher post of Senior Audit Officer on or after 01.01.2016, and began drawing higher pay. It is seen that the information provided by the Respondent No.1 in Annexure A6 and that provided by the learned Counsel for the applicant in the written arguments is essentially one and the same and the same is furnished below for balance of convenience:
S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 50 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH "i. They were promoted to the higher post of Senior Audit Officer prior to their respective certified first juniors, and prior to 01.01.2016;
ii. Their certified first juniors were promoted to the higher post of "Senior Audit Officer subsequent to 01.01.2016;
iii. The Applicants were drawing equal or higher pay than their certified first juniors when promoted to the higher post of 'Senior Audit Officer', as is evidenced by the duly certified comparative pay statements produced at Annexure A-6 to the Original Application;
iv. Upon their promotion to the higher post of Senior Audit Officer, the respective certified juniors began to draw higher pay than each of the Applicants, as is evidenced by the duly certified comparative pay statements produced at Annexure A-6 to the Original Application; and v. That such drawing of higher pay was occasioned solely by the application of Fundamental Rule 22(1)(a)(i).
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI
15:35:06
+05'30'
51 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
A. Applicant No.1 [Annexure A-6, PG. 218]
Applicant No.1 -Raghavendra S. Senior Audit Officer Certified First Junior: Kavitha B.,
Senior Audit Officer
Date Base Pay Pay Band Rank Base Pay Pay Band Rank
(INR) (INR) (INR) (INR)
01.01.2015 23490 5400 Promoted to 23490 5400 Audit
Senior Audit Officer
Officer
01..04.2016 80000 Level 10 Senior Audit 80000 Level 10 Promoted
Officer to Senior
Audit
Officer
01.07.2016 82400 Level 10 Senior Audit 84900 Level 10 Senior
Officer (FR Audit
22(1)(a)(1) Officer
option)
01.01.2017 82400 Level 10 Senior Audit 87400 Level 10 Senior
Officer (Rule 10 of Audit
CCS (RP) Officer
Rules
2016)
B. Applicant No.2 [Annexure A-6, PG-219]
Applicant No.1 -Ravikumar U, S. Senior Audit Officer Certified First Junior: Kavitha B.,
Senior Audit Officer
Date Base Pay Pay Band Rank Base Pay Pay Band Rank
(INR) (INR) (INR) (INR)
01.01.2015 25280 5400 Promoted to 23490 5400 Audit
Ann.A-3, Senior Audit Officer
pg.84 Officer
01..04.2016 80000 Level 10 Senior Audit 80000 Level 10 Promoted
Officer to Senior
Audit
Officer
01.07.2016 82400 Level 10 Senior Audit 84900 Level 10 Senior
Officer (FR Audit
22(1)(a)(1) Officer
option)
01.01.2017 82400 Level 10 Senior Audit 87400 Level 10 Senior
Officer (Rule 10 of Audit
CCS (RP) Officer
Rules
2016)
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI 15:35:06
+05'30'
52 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
C. Applicant No.3 [Annexure A-6, PG,195]
Applicant No.1 -Sanjeev C., S. Senior Audit Officer Certified First Junior: Suresh K., Senior
Audit Officer
Date Base Pay Pay Band Rank Base Pay Pay Band Rank
(INR) (INR) (INR) (INR)
01.01.2015 24980 5400 Promoted to 24060 5400 Audit
Senior Audit Officer
Officer
01..04.2016 82400 Level 10 Senior Audit 82400 Level 10 Promoted
Officer to Senior
Audit
Officer
01.07.2016 84900 Level 10 Senior Audit 87400 Level 10 Senior
Officer (FR Audit
22(1)(a)(1) Officer
option)
01.01.2017 84900 Level 10 Senior Audit 90000 Level 10 Senior
Officer (Rule 10 of Audit
CCS (RP) Officer
Rules
2016)
D. Applicant No.4 [Annexure A-6, PG 233]
Applicant No.1 -Srikanth G., Senior Audit Officer Certified First Junior: Bharati A.S.,
Senior Audit Officer
Date Base Pay Pay Band Rank Base Pay Pay Band Rank
(INR) (INR) (INR) (INR)
01.01.2013 23500 5400 Promoted to 22380 5400 Assistant
Senior Audit Audit
Officer Officer
01..04.2016 84900 Level 10 Senior Audit 84900 Level 10 Promoted
Officer to Senior
Audit
Officer
01.07.2016 87400 Level 10 Senior Audit 90000 Level 10 Senior
Officer (FR Audit
22(1)(a)(1) Officer
option)
01.01.2017 87400 Level 10 Senior Audit 92700 Level 10 Senior
Officer (Rule 10 of Audit
CCS (RP) Officer
Rules
2016)
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI 15:35:06
+05'30'
53 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
E. Applicant No.5 [Annexure A-6, PG.235]
Applicant No.1 -Lakshmi A.N.. Senior Audit Officer Certified First Junior: Bharati A.S.,
Senior Audit Officer
Date Base Pay Pay Band Rank Base Pay Pay Band Rank
(INR) (INR) (INR) (INR)
03.06.2013 24060 5400 Promoted to 22380 5400 Promoted
Senior Audit to Audit
Officer Officer
01..04.2016 87400 Level 10 Senior Audit 84900 Level 10 Promoted
Officer to Senior
Audit
Officer
01.07.2016 90000 Level 10 Senior Audit 90000 Level 10 Senior
Officer (FR Audit
22(1)(a)(1) Officer
option)
01.01.2017 90000 Level 10 Senior Audit 92700 Level 10 Senior
Officer (Rule 10 of Audit
CCS (RP) Officer
Rules
2016)
F. Applicant No.6 [Annexure A-6, PG.231]
Applicant No.1 -Meena P.V.. Senior Audit Officer Certified First Junior: Bharati A.S.,
Senior Audit Officer
Date Base Pay Pay Band Rank Base Pay Pay Band Rank
(INR) (INR) (INR) (INR)
06.01.2015 24710 5400 Promoted to 24080 5400 Audit
Senior Audit Officer
Officer
01..04.2016 84900 Level 10 Senior Audit 84900 Level 10 Promoted
Officer to Senior
Audit
Officer
01.07.2016 87400 Level 10 Senior Audit 90000 Level 10 Senior
Officer (FR Audit
22(1)(a)(1) Officer
option)
01.01.2017 87400 Level 10 Senior Audit 92700 Level 10 Senior
Officer (Rule 10 of Audit
CCS (RP) Officer
Rules
2016)
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI 15:35:06
+05'30'
54 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
G. Applicant No.7 [Annexure A-6, PG,203]
Applicant No.1 -Padma M.,. Senior Audit Officer Certified First Junior: Kariappa K.S..,
Senior Audit Officer
Date Base Pay Pay Band Rank Base Pay Pay Band Rank
(INR) (INR) (INR) (INR)
01.01.2015 24100 5400 Promoted to 24060 5400 Audit
Senior Audit Officer
Officer
01..04.2016 82400 Level 10 Senior Audit 82400 Level 10 Promoted
Officer to Senior
Audit
Officer
01.07.2016 84900 Level 10 Senior Audit 87400 Level 10 Senior
Officer (FR Audit
22(1)(a)(1) Officer
option)
01.01.2017 84900 Level 10 Senior Audit 90000 Level 10 Senior
Officer (Rule 10 of Audit
CCS (RP) Officer
Rules
2016)
H. Applicant No.8 [Annexure A6. PG,205] Applicant No.1 -Ravi S., Senior Audit Officer Certified First Junior: Kariappa K.S., Senior Audit Officer Date Base Pay Pay Band Rank Base Pay Pay Band Rank (INR) (INR) (INR) (INR) 01.01.2014 23240 5400 Promoted to 23200 5400 Audit Senior Audit Officer Officer
01..04.2016 82400 Level 10 Senior Audit 82400 Level 10 Promoted Officer to Senior Audit Officer 01.07.2016 84900 Level 10 Senior Audit 87400 Level 10 Senior Officer (FR Audit 22(1)(a)(1) Officer option) 01.01.2017 84900 Level 10 Senior Audit 90000 Level 10 Senior Officer (Rule 10 of Audit CCS (RP) Officer Rules 2016) S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 55 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH I. Applicant No.9 [Annexure A6, PG 211] Applicant No.1 -Raghavendra B.M., Senior Audit Officer Certified First Junior: Kariappa K.S., Senior Audit Officer Date Base Pay Pay Band Rank Base Pay Pay Band Rank (INR) (INR) (INR) (INR) 01.01.2014 23240 5400 Promoted to 23200 5400 Audit Senior Audit Officer Officer
01..04.2016 82400 Level 10 Senior Audit 82400 Level 10 Promoted Officer to Senior Audit Officer 01.07.2016 84900 Level 10 Senior Audit 87400 Level 10 Senior Officer (FR Audit 22(1)(a)(1) Officer option) 01.01.2017 84900 Level 10 Senior Audit 90000 Level 10 Senior Officer (Rule 10 of Audit CCS (RP) Officer Rules 2016) J. Applicant No.10 [Annexure A6, PG 187] Applicant No.1 -Maragathavalli M., Senior Audit Officer Certified First Junior: Malini Purohit Senior Audit Officer Date Base Pay Pay Band Rank Base Pay Pay Band Rank (INR) (INR) (INR) (INR) 01.01.2015 23530 5400 Promoted to 22620 5400 Audit Senior Audit Officer Officer
01..04.2016 77700 Level 10 Senior Audit 77700 Level 10 Promoted Officer to Senior Audit Officer 01.07.2016 80000 Level 10 Senior Audit 82400 Level 10 Senior Officer (FR Audit 22(1)(a)(1) Officer option) 01.01.2017 80000 Level 10 Senior Audit 84900 Level 10 Senior Officer (Rule 10 of Audit CCS (RP) Officer Rules 2016) S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 56 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH K. Applicant No.11 [Annexure A6, PG 189] Applicant No.1 -Sahadevan K.V., Senior Audit Officer Certified First Junior: Malini Purohit ,Senior Audit Officer Date Base Pay Pay Band Rank Base Pay Pay Band Rank (INR) (INR) (INR) (INR) 01.01.2015 23530 5400 Promoted to 22620 5400 Audit Senior Audit Officer Officer
01..04.2016 77700 Level 10 Senior Audit 77700 Level 10 Promoted Officer to Senior Audit Officer 01.07.2016 80000 Level 10 Senior Audit 82400 Level 10 Senior Officer (FR Audit 22(1)(a)(1) Officer option) 01.01.2017 80000 Level 10 Senior Audit 84900 Level 10 Senior Officer (Rule 10 of Audit CCS (RP) Officer Rules 2016) L. Applicant No.12 [Annexure A6, PG 193] Applicant No.1 -Beena Thomas, Senior Audit Officer Certified First Junior: Suresh K., Senior Audit Officer Date Base Pay Pay Band Rank Base Pay Pay Band Rank (INR) (INR) (INR) (INR) 01.04.2015 23220 5400 Promoted to 24060 5400 Audit Senior Audit Officer Officer
01..07.2015 24970 5400 Senior Audit 24950 5400 Audit Officer Officer 01.04.2016 82400 Level 10 Senior Audit 82400 Level 10 Promoted Officer to Senior Audit Officer 01.07.2016 84900 Level 10 Senior Audit 87400 Level 10 Senior Officer (FR Audit 22(1)(a)(1) Officer option) 01.01.2017 84900 Level 10 Senior Audit 90000 Level 10 Senior Officer (Rule 10 of Audit CCS (RP) Officer Rules 2016) S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 57 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH M. Applicant No.13 [Annexure A6, PG 229] Applicant No.1 -Kunhiraman P.V.. Senior Audit Officer Certified First Junior: Bharati A.S., Senior Audit Officer Date Base Pay Pay Band Rank Base Pay Pay Band Rank (INR) (INR) (INR) (INR) 01.01.2013 23500 5400 Promoted to 22380 5400 Assistant Senior Audit Audit Officer Officer
01..04.2016 84900 Level 10 Senior Audit 84900 Level 10 Promoted Officer to Senior Audit Officer 01.07.2016 87400 Level 10 Senior Audit 90000 Level 10 Senior Officer (FR Audit 22(1)(a)(1) Officer option) 01.01.2017 87400 Level 10 Senior Audit 92700 Level 10 Senior Officer (Rule 10 of Audit CCS (RP) Officer Rules 2016) The following table clearly indicates that each of the applicants satisfies the conditions under Rule 7(10) of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016:
Condition Number under Rule Compliance with the Rule 7 (10) of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 Clause (a) Both the junior and the The applicants and their respective juniors senior Government servants were in the same post of Audit Officers before belong to the same cadre and the their promotion.
posts in which they have been promoted are identical in the same Both the applicants and their respective juniors cadre. were promoted to the identical post of Senior Audit Officers before and after 01.01.2016 respectively.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI 15:35:06
+05'30'
58 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Clause (b) The existing pay The existing (i.e., prior to 01.01.2016) as well
structure and the revised pay as the revised (i.e., 01.01.2016 onwards under
structure of the lower and higher 7th Central Pay Commission) pay structure in
posts in which they are entitled to the lower post of 'Audit Officer' was
draw pay are identical Rs.9,300-Rs.34,400 (PB-2) and Level 9 having
minimum pay of Rs.53,100 respectively. The existing (i.e.. prior to 01.01.2016) as well as the revised (i.e., 01.01.2016 onwards under 7th Central Pay Ccommission) pay structure in the higher post of Senior Audit Officer was Rs.15,600-Rs 39,100 (PB-3) and Level 10 having minimum pay of Rs.56,100 respectively.
(C) Clause Government servants at The comparative statements furnished along the time of promotion are drawing with the Application [Original Application, equal or more pay than the junior Annexure A6, p.165] ad represented above clearly show that as on the date of each applicant's promotion to the higher post of 'Senior Audit Officer', he/she was drawing equal or higher pay than their certified first junior.
Clause (d) The anomaly is directly In the instant case, it is clear from the as a result of the application of the comparative statements of each of the provisions of Fundamental Rules Applicants with his/her respective junior that 22 or any other rule or order on account of implementation of 7th Central regulating pay fixation on such Pay Ccommission recommendations through promotion in the revised pay CCS (Revised Pay) Rules. 2016 and on structure. Provided that if the account of fixation of pay under the provisions junior officer was drawing more of FR 22 (1) (a) (1) at the time of promotion to pay in the existing pay structure the post of Senior Audit Officer after than the senior by virtue of any 01.01.2016, the pay of the junior was fixed at advance increments granted to a higher stage than that of their respective him, the provisions of this sub-rule senior, thus giving rise to the anomalous shall not be invoked to step up the situation, which is the subject matter of the pay of the senior officer present application.
Furthermore, it is clear from these comparative statements that the anomaly has arisen only on account of application of provisions of FR 22 S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 59 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH (1) (a) (1) at the time of promotion of the respective junior after 01.01.2016 and not as a result of grant of any advance increment to the respective junior.
25. The above averments of the learned Counsel for the applicants also find resonance with the judgments in OA No.213/2022 and connected matter and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which were earlier cited by learned Counsel for applicants and are reproduced as below:
OA NO.213/2022 (DD: 19.03.2024) - CAT, BANGALORE BENCH.
"12. The points that arise for our consideration are:
1) Whether paras (f), (g) and (h) of clause (3) of RBE No.133/2019 dated 16.08.2019 (Annexure A1) are justifiable?
2) Whether the applicants appointed as CLI prior to 01.01.2016 are entitled for stepping up of pay on par with their juniors promoted as CLI after 01.01.2016 with all consequential benefits as claimed?
13. This anomaly in fixation of pay of CLIs appointed prior to 01.01.2016 with reference to their juniors appointed after 01.01.2016 and drawing more pay than the seniors whose pay has S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 60 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH been fixed in the 7th CPC pay structure under RS (RP) Rules, 2016, requires to be considered in the background of such repetitive anomalies arisen due to fixation of pay, based on the recommendations of the pay commissions like, 5th CPC & 6th CPC. It transpires that finally, owing to the judicial intervention, the grievance of the senior CLI's has been resorted to. The anomaly has now arisen as a result of implementation of the 7th CPC owing to which the CLI when got promoted after 01.01.2016, on pay fixation, started drawing higher pay than the senior who were promoted prior to 01.01.2016..........................................
14. ........
15. ........
16. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 2052/2012 & C.M. No. 4471/2012 (DD: 05.09.2017) in the case of Union of India and Ors. vs. Surinder Kumar Dhingra, noticing the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in O.P. Saxena, supra, subsequently followed in Surendra Kumar, supra, and also the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Union of India & Ors. vs. Gurbax Singh (Writ Petition (C) No. 2163/2002), considering the relief of stepping up of pay granted to similarly situated persons who had approached the Tribunals in other parts of the country and in all those cases the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissing the SLPs preferred by the Union of India, more particularly, dismissal of the Review Petition by the Hon'ble Apex Court filed by the Union of India in the case of Shyamapada Roy & Ors. and K.S. Rajendra Kumar, S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 61 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH dismissed the petition filed by the Union of India challenging the order passed by this Tribunal - Principal Bench in OA No. 3857/2010 whereby the Original Application was allowed by the Tribunal directing the Union of India and others to step up the pay of the applicant therein on par with his junior with effect from the date of the promotion granted to the junior to the post of Loco Inspector. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has referred to the dismissal of the SLPs by the Hon'ble Apex Court preferred against the decision of the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 134/2012 decided on 25.09.2012 and the SLPs titled as Union of India and Ors vs V. Murugesan and anr related to another similar order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Writ Petition (C) No. 3528/2013 (DD: 19.02.2013). It has been categorically held that the respondent therein being senior to one Shri Ravinder Sharma, the denial of stepping up of pay to the respondent therein was clearly discriminatory where the pay of the said Shri Ravinder Sharma was fixed at Rs. 29,290/- as on 20.12.2006 whereas that of the respondent therein, who was senior, was fixed at Rs. 25,050/- on account of fixation of pay under the Sixth Pay Commission report.
17. Thus, SLP's preferred by the respondents against many of the judgments of the respective Hon'ble High Courts affirming the view of various benches of this Tribunal upholding stepping up of S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 62 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH pay of seniors on par with juniors relating to the anomaly created by revision of pay scale as recommended by the 6th CPC have been rejected.
18. Recently, the Patna Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 935/2019 in the case of Dinesh Kumar and Ors vs Union of India & Ors, (DD: 06.07.2023), while considering the identical issue of the anomaly arising due to the implementation of 7th Pay Commission, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Surinder Kumar Dhingra, supra, and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in Civil Writ Petition No. 4330/2019 (Union of India & Ors. vs. Jagdish Kumar Bulchandani & Anr.) as well as the dismissal of the SLPs before the Hon'ble Apex Court observed thus:
"17. In the light of above discussions, I am inclined to hold that this case is squarely covered by the judgment of Delhi High Court dated 05.09.2017 in WP(C) No. 2052 of 2012 and Rajasthan High Court dated 26.03.2019 in Civil Writ Petition No. 4330/2019. These judgements have attained finality and the ratio can be directly applied in the instant case. Also, Railway Board itself, after issuing clarification on 14.11.2019 that the posts of Loco Pilot (Goods), Loco Pilot (Passenger), Loco Pilot (Mail) etc. are from separate cadre for the purpose of S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 63 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH promotions, allowed stepping up of pay of seniors LIs promoted before 01.01.2016 at par with junior LI promoted after 01.01.2016 as special dispensation condoning the conditions of same cadre. Further, North West Railway, taking cue from the Railway Board order dated 27.01.2020 allowed stepping up of pay of CLI promoted before 01.01.2016 at par with their juniors who were promoted after 01.01.2016 and were getting more basic pay than the senior CLIs. Different Railway Zones cannot have different norms for promotions/financial benefits to their employees as that would be discriminatory and against the law.
18. Taking the entirety of facts and legal aspects discussed above into consideration, it deems that interest of justice would be served if the applicants who were promoted as CLI prior to 01.01.2016 get their pay at par with their juniors who were promoted in 2018. Accordingly, the Office order dated 16.09.2019 (Annexure A/7) is quashed and set aside and the Office order No. 265 of 2019 (Annexure A/3) is restored to its original status. Respondents are directed to fix the present salary of the applicant accordingly and pay the arrears within four months of receipt of copy of this order." ...............................................................
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI
15:35:06
+05'30'
64 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
25. As per Clause (3) (f) of RBE No. 133/2019, CLI promoted from Loco Pilot (Goods) prior to 01.01.2016, could be treated on par with his junior promoted as CLI from Loco Pilot (Goods) after 01.01.2016 but not from Loco Pilot (Passenger)/Loco Pilot (Mail/Express). This is nothing but an artificial classification. If CLI from Loco Pilot (Goods) prior to 01.01.2016 is entitled to pay fixation on par with his junior promoted after 01.01.2016 from Loco Pilot (Goods), why not on par with Loco Pilot (Passenger) or Loco Pilot (Mail/Express). Similarly with the other two feeder posts when the feeder posts for CLI is by selection from all the three posts viz., Loco Pilot (Goods)/Loco Pilot (Passenger)/Loco Pilot (Mail/Express) when the pay structure of these posts are identical. This artificial classification does not pass the test of muster under Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
26. It is well-settled that Article 14 is no longer to be equated with the principle of classification. It is primarily a guarantee against arbitrariness in State action and the doctrine of classification has been evolved only as a subsidiary rule for testing whether a particular State action is arbitrary or not. If a law is arbitrary or irrational it would fall foul of Article 14. Article 14 permits reasonable classification but prohibits class legislation. The classification must not be 'arbitrary, artificial or evasive'. A classification is reasonable when the twin tests as laid down by the S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 65 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Hon'ble Apex Court in State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952 SCR 284) are fulfilled, i.e., (i) the classification must be based on the intelligible differentia, (ii) the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Statute. There must be nexus between the basis for classification and the object of the Act which makes the classification. If there is no reasonable basis for a classification, that classification can be declared discriminatory. Classifying only one cadre of Loco Pilot i.e. Goods/Passenger/Mail/Express as equal when admittedly the CLI post is filled by promotion through a selection process on merit basis amongst the feeder cadre of posts Loco Pilot (Goods)/Loco Pilot (Passenger)/Loco Pilot (Mail/Express), is highly arbitrary and irrational. All the feeder cadre posts must get equal treatment. When the selection to the post of CLI is on merit, through competitive examination, and the pay structure of the feeder posts is the same. RBE No. 196/2019 would not come to the assistance of the respondents to contend that Loco Pilot (Goods)/Loco Pilot (Passenger)/Loco Pilot (Mail/Express) form separate and distinct cadre while addressing the anomaly of pay fixation pursuant to the 7th CPC recommendations which is issued in furtherance to RBE No. 133/2019, the same being discriminatory and perverse, vitiates the selection process.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI
15:35:06
+05'30'
66 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
27. It is categorically admitted by the respondents that the post of Loco Supervisor/CLI is filled by a common selection conducted amongst Loco Pilot (Goods), Loco Pilot (Passenger) and Loco Pilot (Mail/Express) and the meritorious amongst them get promoted as CLI. Irrespective of the grades from which they get promoted, on promotion to the post of CLI, their pay is fixed under FR 22 (1) (a) (i) or Rule 1313 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, (erstwhile Rule FR 22 (c)). The principle of stepping up of pay is intended to overcome a situation where a junior is promoted to the post to which the senior was earlier promoted and his pay fixed at a stage higher than the pay drawn by the senior. On promotion whether the junior was getting more pay or not is to be compared with reference to point of time of promotion of the senior and not at the time of promotion of junior. Even otherwise, in the instant cases, the juniors were drawing lesser pay than the applicants at the time of juniors' promotion. The anomaly had arisen not because of longer length of service or any higher pay drawn by the juniors at the time of their promotion but only because 30% of the pay drawn by the juniors at the time of their promotion is added to their pay. In order to overcome such a situation, the Railway Board has issued series of orders for stepping up of pay with reference to the junior who was promoted to the cadre of CLI.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI
15:35:06
+05'30'
67 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
28. ..................................... As a consequence of
implementation of recommendations of Sixth Central Pay Commission, various pre-revised scales have been merged and got replaced by same revised pay structure (same Pay Band and Grade Pay) leading to merger of corresponding posts. Loco Pilot (Goods), Loco Pilot (Passenger) and Loco Pilot (Mail/Express) constitute a common class as defined in IREM at Para 103. Hence, O.P. Saxena, supra, is distinguishable. The applicants who were more meritorious at the time of selection to the post of CLI cannot be deprived of the benefit of stepping up of pay on par with their juniors whom they were supervising all along, including working as Loco Pilot (Goods), Loco Pilot (Passenger) and Loco Pilot (Mail/Express) etc. Hence, even on the ground of equity, justice and precedence, stepping up of pay of the applicants is warranted. However, the applicants fulfil all the conditions mentioned under Rule 7 (10) (i) of RS (RP) Rules, 2016 namely, 1) the applicants and juniors belong to the feeder cadre of posts to CLI and in the same scale of pay i.e., in Level 6 of the pay matrix, 2) the existing pay structure and revised pay structure of the lower and higher post in which they are entitled to pay are identical, 3) the senior railway servants (applicants) were drawing at the time of their promotion and even at the time of promotion of the juniors more pay than the juniors and 4) the anomaly was as a result of application of Rule 1313 of Indian Railway Establishment Code.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI
15:35:06
+05'30'
68 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Any artificial classification created by the respondents stating that Loco Pilot (Goods), Loco Pilot (Passenger) and Loco Pilot (Mail/Express) constitute different cadres cannot deny the legally entitled rights of the applicants. Thus, treating Loco Pilot (Goods)/Loco Pilot (Passenger)/Loco Pilot (Mail/Express) as three different and distinct seniority units constituting different cadres/posts in the context of clause (a) as provided in Clause (3)
(g) of RBE No. 133/2019 is arbitrary. Similarly, the condition of allowing stepping up once as enumerated in clause (h) is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Identical anomaly arisen on revision of pay fixation made on the recommendations of earlier pay commissions having been resorted to, the identical issues requires to be resorted to in similar manner. Rights of the CLI cannot be curtailed in an arbitrary manner. Hence, Paras (f),
(g) and (h) of Clause (3) of RBE No. 133/2019 are declared arbitrary and discriminatory, hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
29. ............................... In the light of the order passed by this Tribunal, Patna Bench, in OA No. 935/2019, supra, the applicants are entitled for stepping up of pay as claimed. We have no reasons to differ from the aforesaid findings of this Tribunal. The judgments of various Hon'ble High Courts conformity the stepping up of pay of seniors on par with juniors relating to earlier S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 69 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH pay commission anomalies, having been approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in dismissing the SLP's filed by the respondents, applicants are entitled to similar reliefs.
30..........................
31...........................
32. Hence, we pass the following:
:ORDER:
1) The Paras (f), (g) and (h) of Clause (3) of RBE No. 133/2019 dated 16.08.2019 (Annexure-A1) issued by the Railway Board in OA No. 213/2022 and OA No. 215/2022 are set aside.
2) The respondents are directed to re-consider the representations/requests of the applicants and pass appropriate orders, stepping up the pay of the applicants on par with their respective juniors who have been promoted as CLI after 01.01.2016 namely, Shri Vangavolu Ramarao in OA No. 213/2022 and Shri P. Eswaran in OA No. 215/2022."
S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 70 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH W.P.(C) No.3325/2014 (DD: 07.11.2014 - Hon'ble High Court of Delhi "1. In these proceedings, the Union of India questions a decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by which the respondent's application for stepping-up of pay was allowed.
2. The facts are that the respondent was promoted to the post of Scientist-F from Scientist-E on 01.07.2004. He continued to hold that post when the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission were implemented with effect from 01.01.2006. The implementation was in terms of a Notification issued at that time, and subsequently governed by the Central Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, made effective from 01.01.2006, and framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. On 01.07.2008, one Sh. J.K. Varshney who was junior to the respondent in the cadre of Scientist-E was promoted as Scientist- F. His pay was fixed at `56030/- The respondent's pay at that time was `54700/-. The respondent complained that though he was senior in the cadre of Scientist E, and was promoted as Scientist- F earlier to Sh. J.K. Varshney, the pay anomaly in that he was fixed in a pay scale at a stage earlier and was drawing lower pay than one junior to him, persisted. He represented against this unsuccessfully. The Controller General of Defence Accounts which dealt with the respondent's service conditions rejected his representation on 17.03.2011. He, therefore, approached the CAT.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI 15:35:06
+05'30'
71 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
3. Before the CAT, the respondent relied upon Rule 7 of the CCS Revised Pay Rules, especially Note 10 to it. The UOI which contested the proceedings, contended firstly that the respondents could not be treated as senior because Sh. Varshney had been recruited on 27.02.1981 as Scientist-B where as the respondent joined that post much later on 18.02.1984. It was also urged that the successive promotions to the post of Scientist-C and Scientist- D also followed a similar pattern. In these cadres, the respondent was promoted later. Therefore, argued the Union, the respondent could not be treated as senior. The Union also relied upon an Office Memorandum dated 04.11.1993 and argued that he was not entitled to fixation at a stage higher than of the junior. The CAT which considered the submissions of the parties considered the seniority list published by the DRDO for Scientists-E and F. It found that in terms of the seniority position of the respondent vis- a-vis Sh. Varshney the latter was shown as his junior at the relevant time and consequently, as senior to Varshney. It was also held that the pay anomaly arose on account of implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations and, therefore, directed the relief sought for by the respondent.
4. .......
5. .......
6. ........
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI
15:35:06
+05'30'
72 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
7. The Union's contention in this case is that there is no pay anomaly because the respondent cannot be treated as Varshney's senior. This argument is unmerited. Whilst Varshney undoubtedly joined the DRDO as Scientist-B at a point of time earlier than the respondent and was subsequently promoted to the post of Scientist-D, the findings of fact reveal that in the post of Scientist-E and subsequently in the post of Scientist-F, it was the respondent who was senior. He was promoted earlier than Sh. Varshney. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that Sh. Varshney had to be treated as senior. The reference to senior in Note 10 is in the concerned grade with reference to the point of time when the incumbents joined the post. Both in the grades of Scientist-E and Scientist-F, the respondent was undoubtedly senior to Sh. Varshney. The Union's contention is, therefore, without merit.
8. The second- and more important- issue is whether the Office Memorandum dated 04.11.1993 applies. As a textual reading of the conditions in that Memorandum suggests, paras 2(c) and 2(d) clearly speak of situations where the senior is appointed later than the junior. In the present case, the respondent was appointed in the post of Scientist-E as well as Scientist-F earlier to Sh. J.K. Varshney. Therefore, the said Office S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 73 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Memorandum- which is merely clarificatory in regard to the application of FR-22C, is not attracted.
9. Note 10 to Rule 7, in the opinion of this Court, clearly applies to anomalies which arise upon implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations. In the present case too, the respondent- as required by that provision- was promoted prior to 01.01.2006. He is drawing less pay in the revised pay structure than his junior- Sh. J.K. Varshney (who was promoted after 01.01.2006 in the pay band of the respondent). The application of Note 10 is dependent upon four conditions (a to d) spelt-out in Note 10. The facts and findings recorded by the CAT disclose that the respondent was drawing higher pay than Sh. Varshney till the latter's promotion. Having regard to this conspectus of facts, it is held that there is no error in the order of the CAT impugned in the present case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed along with the pending application."
26. The respondents have submitted the following para-wise reply with reference to the written submissions filed by the applicant:
S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 74 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH A. For point No.1 to 3 No specific reply is necessary B. For point No.4(i) They were promoted to the higher post of 'Senior Audit Officer' prior to their respect certified first juniors and prior to 01.01.2016.
(ii) Their certified first juniors were promoted to the higher post of 'Senior Audit Officer' subsequent to 01.01.2016;
(iii) The Applicants were drawing equal or higher pay than their certified first juniors when promoted to the higher post of 'Senior Audit Officer' as is evidenced by the duly certified comparative pay statements produced at Annexure A-6 to the Original Application;
(iv) Upon their promotion to the higher post of 'Senior Audit Officer', the respective certified juniors began to Statements made are the matters of draw higher pay than each of the record and the same are not in dispute. Applicants, as is evidenced by the duly certified comparative pay statements produced at Annexure A-6 to the Original Application; and
(v)That such drawing of higher pay was occasioned solely by the application of Fundamental Rule22(1)(a)(i).
For Point No.B Pay of the applicant Ravikumar U as on 01.01.2015 mentioned is incorrect. It should be Rs.24380/-
For Point No.5 to 9 No specific reply is necessary. The legal submissions are in order.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI 15:35:06
+05'30'
75 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
27. From the above, it is abundantly clear that the case of the 13 applicants falls within the ambit of the above mentioned judgments. The facts and the circumstances of these applicants are very much similar to the cases decided supra, by this Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
28. It is clearly established that the applicants were promoted to the post of Senior Audit Officers before 01.01.2016 and their respective juniors were promoted after 01.01.2016. It is also evident from the documents on record that both the junior and senior Government servants belong to the same cadre and the post to which they were promoted, were also identical and in the same cadre. This is regardless of the fact that the stipulation of belonging to the same cadre was considered to be an artificial classification as per the order of this Bench of CAT in OA No.213/2022 and hence, the same is not necessary for giving the benefit of stepping up of pay to the seniors, at par with the juniors.
29. Paragraphs-3 and 7 of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court Delhi in W.P.No.3325/2014 dated 11.07.2014, also clearly indicates that S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 SARALADEVI 15:35:06 +05'30' 76 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH the date of recruitment cannot be the basis for seniority in all cases. It was observed in the judgment that even though the respondent had joined later than the applicant, he was promoted to the post of Scientist 'E' and Scientist 'F' earlier and hence he was considered to be senior.
30. It is also clearly established that the DOPT OM dated 26.10.2010 deals with only those cases where both the senior Government servants and junior Government servants were promoted or appointed to a higher post on or after 01.01.2016, whereas in this OA, the applicants were appointed to the higher post of Senior Audit Officer prior to 01.01.2016 and the junior Government servants were promoted after 01.01.2016.
31. In view of the above, OA is allowed.
1) The impugned Endorsement dated 21.11.2022 (Annexure A1) issued by the Respondents is set aside.
2) The respondents are directed to grant stepping up of pay to the applicants and fix their pay scale as per Sub-Rule 10 of Rule-7 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI 15:35:06
+05'30'
77 OA 656/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
3) The arrears of pay and allowances be paid to the applicants from the relevant date.
4) The same may be complied within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
No costs.
sd/- sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B.K.SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
SARALADEVI 15:35:06
+05'30'