Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.80). [in these three OAs, the applicants are not entitied to additional financial upgradation just because they are seniors in service as they were not in the same 16 OA Na.677, 709, Tid of 2013 pay scale as that of Shri Haldar. As per Note 10 under Rule 7 of CCS (Revised) Pay Rules, 2008 relating to stepping up of pay, the same conditions of FR 22 (26) have been provided. Since the applicants in these OAs did not satisfy these conditions of FR 22(26) and Note 10 under Rule 7 of CCS (Revised) Pay Rules, 2008, their request for stepping up of pay cannot be accepted and therefore, these OA deserve to be dismissed.

(a). both the junlor and senior officers should belong to the same cadre and the pasts in which they have been promoted or appointed should be identical and in the same cadre:

(b). the scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical and (c}. the anomaly should be directly as a result of the application ef FR 22-0, For example, f even in the lower post the junior officer has drawn from time to time a higher rate of pay than the senior by virtue of grant of advance increments or on any other sount, the above provisions will not be invoked to step up the pay of the senior officer, (1). As a result of FR 22()\ay(1) application in the revised scales of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, the stepping up of pay should be done with effect from the date of promotion of the junior Government servant subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions :

The applicants therein had argued that Clause-8 of ACP Scheme providing for financial Upgradation under the Scherne js burely Sersonal to the t iF Lor CHA No. 677, 709, 7G oF BOIS employee and shall have no relevance to his seniority position and as such no additional financial upgradation will be given to a senior employee on the ground that the juntor employee has got higher pay scale under the ACP Scheme. The respondents in that O.A. had argued that there was no infirmity in the Clause-8 of the Scheme and relied on Supreme Court decisions in case of Unian of india and Anr Vs. VR. Swarninathan, JT 1997(8) SC 61 and State of UP. & Ors. Vs. J.P Cahurasia and Ors., JT 1988 (4) SC 53. They had also relied upon a judgment of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. 3717/2008 (AN. Pant & Ors. Vs. Union of india & Others) dated D1.08.2012 in which the claim of the applicants for placement in higher pay scale on the ground that junior employee had got thet grade on account of ACP Scheme was rejecied. In the above decision the Clause-8 of the AGP Scheme was not declared ultra vires and only stepping up of pay (not pay scale} was allowed. In that decision, provisions of FR-22 and CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 were not considered.

(iii) in Civil Appeals No.65-87/2009 Gurcharan Singh Grewal and another Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others (2009) 3 SCC 94, the reasoning given by the High Court was not accepted and it was directed that the applicant was entitled to the same benefits of pay parily with sehr Short, 4.4, However, tt has to be noted that in the above decisions of Chandigarh Bench, Principal Sench and Supreme Court, the view taken Was as a general rule that senior employees should not get less pay than their j Junto But the provisions under FR-22, and CCS (Revi sed Pay} Rules, 2008 did not come up for consideration which are the basic rules governing fixation of pay of Central Gov- ermment employees. The plea of the anolicants in these OAs ig that under ACP Scheme there was no prohibition for Stepping up of pay of seniors fo bring it on par with juniors. However, for stepping up of pay, the relevant provisions under FR-22(21) dealing for removing anomaly by stepping up of pay of senior on promotion drawing less pay than Mis junior, and as mentioned in Para 44 abave, the conditians mentioned under FR-22(21) on the subject have been mentioned. These conditions of FR-22(21) were also provided under CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. F R-22(26) deals with instances which do not constitute an anomaly for stepping up of pay with reference to juniors and the canditions mentioned there.