AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
These four Original Applications have been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Since they raise substantially similar legal issues concerning the stepping up of the pay of a senior with reference to that of a junior, they are being considered together. For convenience, the facts in OA No. 493/2023 are taken as the lead case. The applicant has sought the following reliefs:
“a)Call for records of the case from the respondents and on perusal
b)Quash the set aside the impugned order No. AN/PAY/III/1079/Step up/SAOs dated 20.03.2023 at Annexure A3 passed by 3rd respondent as also the letter No. AN/PAY/III/1079/Step up/SAOs dated 27.09.2023 (Annexure A6) issued by 3rd respondent as arbitrary, unjust and unfair as also the and not a reasoned speaking order;
c)And issue a consequential direction to the Respondents to step up pay of the Applicant to Rs.84900/- at par with his junior with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and equity.
d)Pass any other order or direction as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Tribunal including an order for award of cost of this application in the interest of justice and equity.”
The applicant seeks these reliefs on the grounds and legal provisions set out below:
“5.1.The grievance of the applicant in this is that he is entitled for stepping up of his pay on par with his junior and the said anomaly is directly as result of the application of the provisions of FR 22 (now FR 22 1 (a) I) regulating pay fixation on such promotions in the revised pay structure when compared with the pay of the applicant and his junior in the 7th CPC as on 01.01.2016 and 01.07.2016 and the condition under Note 10 of Rule 7 of Revised Pay Rules 2016 are fulfilled by the applicant as the applicant was drawing more pay than his junior Shri S.K. Pandit on that day of his pay fixation on promotion with effect from 1.1.2016 with DNI on 01.07.2016 in the 7th pay structure. Hence, the Applicant is entitled to get his pay stepped up to Rs.84900/- with effect from 01.07.2016 on par with his junior Shri S.K. Pandit SAO and on this ground alone the impugned order at Annexure A1 passed by R-3 is liable to be quashed as arbitrary, unjust and unsustainable. 5.2. The impugned order dated 20.3.2023 is liable to be quashed as the same has been passed without dealing with the claim raised by the applicant but solely basing on the ground that stepping up of pay is not applicable for second time. The applicant has not claimed the stepping up for second time at all. Earlier case was antedating the pay of the applicant with reference to the drawal of increment of his junior in the grade. In this connection the applicant produces herewith and marks as ANNEXURE A7 letter granting the antedating of increment. Therefore, terming the stepping up for second time is absolutely unjust, arbitrary and unsustainable.
5.3.A perusal of Annexures A1 representation and Annexure A2 viz., Note 10 below Rule 10 of CCS (RP) Rules 2016 makes it clear that the applicant fulfills all the conditions laid down in the said note and, therefore, the applicant is entitled for stepping up of his pay on par with his junior. Therefore, denial of the prayer by the respondents is arbitrary, unjust and the applicant is entitled for necessary directions at the hands of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
5.4.The impugned reply dated 27.9.2023 also is not answering the representation of the applicant but on the other hand only by referring the case of some other person the third respondent has pointed out that the stepping up for second time is not allowed and accordingly impliedly the claim of the applicant is rejected. This is an order which has been passed without application of mind, mechanically and liable to be set aside.
5.5.Further the reliance of GOI decision 23 under FR 22 in rejecting the prayer of the applicant in the reply dated 27.9.2023 is also incorrect because the stepping up sought by the applicant is not for the second time but the situation has arisen only because the applicant was promoted before 1.1.2016 in the VI CPC dispensation and the junior was granted such promotion after 1.1.2016 i.e., after implementation of VII CPC recommendation. This situation is dealt with by Note 10 to Rule 7 of CCS (RP) Rules 2016 and since the applicant fulfils all the four stipulations he is entitled for the stepping up and denial of the same is arbitrary, unjust and unsustainable.
5.6.In support of his case the applicant relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of UOI and Others V Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy & others in Civil Appeal Nos 2087-2088 of 2022 dt.06.04.2022 a copy of which is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A8. Para 5 of the said judgment covers squarely to the case of the applicant and hence the applicant is entitled for stepping up of his pay on par with his junior.
5.7.The applicant draws support for his case from the order dated 28.3.2019 in OA No.558/2015 passed by Cuttack Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal wherein similar issue of junior getting higher pay after his promotion subsequent to the date of implementation of VI CPC had been questioned. The Hon'ble Bench upheld the claim of the applicant and allowed the OA by order dated 28.3.2019 (ANNEXURE A9). While allowing the case of the applicant Hon'ble Bench also referred to the order of Bombay Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal of in Ο.Α.Νο.435/1994 dt. 30.1.1995.
5.8.Viewed from any angle the denial of the prayer of the applicant for stepping up of his pay on par with his junior by the impugned orders/communications are otherwise arbitrary, unjust, illegal and unsustainable and the impugned orders/communications are liable to be set aside.”
The brief facts of the applicant's case, as set out in the synopsis, are as follows: -
“ In this OA the applicant is aggrieved by the rejection of his prayer for stepping up of his pay on par with the pay of his junior. The applicant was promoted as Senior Accounts officer on 1.4.2013 when the VI CPC dispensation was in vogue whereas his junior was promoted on 1.4.2016 after coming into VII CPC recommendations and on his promotion the pay of the junior was fixed at a higher level. The anomaly was due to the promotion accorded to the applicant well before 31.12.2015 and after 1.1.2016 to the junior. As the respondents have declined to grant relief to the applicant he has been constrained to present this OA.”
Notice having been issued, the respondents filed their reply statement, followed by a rejoinder from the applicant. The respondents thereafter filed an additional reply. Various documents were filed by both parties through memos and have been taken on record.
The case came up for final hearing on 25.08.2026. Learned counsel Shri B.S. Venkatesh Kumar for the applicant and learned counsel Shri S. Sugumaran for the respondents were present and heard.
We have carefully perused the pleadings, documents on record and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both sides.
The material facts, which are either admitted or borne out from the record, are that the applicant joined service as a Lower Division Clerk on 09.11.1987. After passing the SAS Examination, he was promoted as Section Officer (Accounts) w.e.f. 23.03.1998, as Assistant Accounts Officer w.e.f. 07.01.2003, as Accounts Officer w.e.f. 13.09.2010, and as Senior Accounts Officer (SAO) w.e.f. 01.04.2013. It is also not in dispute that the applicant had earlier been granted ante-dating of increment in the grade of Auditor, with arrears of pay and allowances for the period from 01.01.1996 to 22.03.1998, with reference to his junior, Shri R. Sridhar. The present claim, however, arises from a subsequent and distinct pay anomaly involving another junior, Shri S.K. Pandit.
The present claim concerns Shri S.K. Pandit, who was also working as an Accounts Officer and was promoted as Senior Accounts Officer w.e.f. 01.04.2016, after implementation of the recommendations of the 7th CPC. The applicant had already been promoted as Senior Accounts Officer w.e.f. 01.04.2013. On implementation of the 7th CPC, the pay of Shri S.K. Pandit was fixed at Rs.84,900/- w.e.f. 01.07.2016, whereas the applicant's pay was fixed at Rs.80,000/- w.e.f. 01.01.2016, with the date of next increment as 01.07.2016; upon drawl of that increment, his pay became Rs.82,400/-. Thus, the applicant came to draw less pay than his junior, Shri S.K. Pandit. The applicant consequently submitted a representation dated 11.04.2022 to Respondent No.3 seeking stepping up of his pay with reference to Shri S.K. Pandit in terms of Note 10 below Rule 7 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016. The respondents rejected the claim on the ground that, under Government of India Order No. 23 under FR-22, the benefit of stepping up for a second time could be granted only with reference to the same junior with reference to whom stepping up had been allowed earlier, namely Shri R. Sridhar.
We have examined Annexure – A3, which is the endorsement dated 20.03.2023 bearing the subject "stepping up of pay after ante-dating of increment (second time)". The material portion of the endorsement reads as follows: -
“ This has reference to your application for stepping up of your pay on par with junior. The matter was referred to HQrs. Office for clarification whether stepping up of pay will be admissible a second time (since antedating of increment was already done for the first time with another junior) vide this office letter of even no dated 12.11.2020.
2.It was directed by HQrs office vide above quoted letter to obtain audit report in this matter from PCDA (Pensions) Prayagraj being Auditing Controller of DAD and accordingly the case was referred to PCDA (Pensions) Prayagraj for issuing clarification in this regard vide this office letter of even no. dated 18.11.2022.
3.It has now been clarified by PCDA (Pensions) Prayagraj vide letter No, PA/DAD/South Bangalore /Vol. II dated 20.1.2023 stating "to review the subject case in light of Gol order No. 23 under FR-22 as per direction in Para (2) of HQrs letter No. AN/XIV/PF/Stepping up/ Vol. VII dated 3.10 2022 and may take action accordingly".
4.PCDA (Pensions) Prayagraj has referred to Para (2) of the above mentioned HQrs office letter No. AN/XIV/PF/Stepping up/ Vol. VII dated 3.10.2022 which states "the case may be examined in terms of Gol order No. 23 under FR-22 which stipulates the following:-
“ ...benefits of stepping up of pay can be allowed to senior officials, second time, provided the anomaly has arisen with reference to the pay of the same junior, with whom the pay of senior was stepped up first time...” ”
The said endorsement was also marked to the applicant, Shri B.N. Suresh. The substance of the respondents' objection is that the applicant's claim has to be examined in terms of Government of India Order No. 23 under FR-22, which contains the clarification regarding second-time stepping up. The applicant, on the other hand, relies upon Note 10 below Rule 7 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 and contends that the four conditions prescribed therein are independently satisfied in his case.
“a)Both the applicant and his junior Shri S.K. Pandit 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 the higher posts, they are entitled to draw pay are identical.
c)The applicant was drawing more pay than his junior and
d)The anomaly is directly as result of the application of the provision of FR-22 regulating pay fixation on such promotion in the revised pay structure.”
The applicant's case is that all four conditions prescribed in the statutory rule are satisfied. Significantly, the respondents do not dispute that the applicant satisfies those conditions. The Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 under Rule 7 Item 10 Central Administrative Tribunalclearly provides as follows:
“ In case where a senior Government servant promoted to a higher post before the 1st 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 1st day of January, 2016, 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 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 Fundamental Rule 22 or any other rule or order regulating pay fixation on such promotion in the revised pay structure.”
The respondents also accept that the applicant fulfils all four conditions laid down in Rule 7 Item 10 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016. Their sole objection is that, notwithstanding fulfilment of those conditions, the applicant cannot obtain stepping up for a second time because of Government of India clarification Order No.23 under FR-22, which stipulates that benefits of stepping up of pay can be allowed to senior officials, second time, provided the anomaly has arisen with reference to the pay of the same junior, with whom the pay of senior was stepped up first time.
We now turn to the precise scope and legal effect of the FR-22 provisions relied upon by the respondents. The relevant extract filed with the reply statement reads as follows: -
“(20) Stepping up of pay of senior for a second time in order to remove an anomaly in pay vis-a-vis same junior
admissible.- Doubts have been raised by various Ministries / Departments as to whether provisions relating to stepping up of pay of senior employee with reference to his junior in order to remove an anomaly may be invoked to step up the pay of a senior employee for a second time, in case he happens to draw less pay than his junior again, due to stepping up of pay of the latter with reference to pay of persons further junior to him by applying the above provisions.
2.According to the clarification contained in the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Decision below this rule, while stepping up pay in accordance with the aforesaid general instructions, the benefit should be allowed only once with reference to the pay of the 'first junior' (not necessarily 'immediate junior') on whose promotion an anomaly arose in pay of the senior incumbent. In cases where pay of such 'first junior' at par with whom the pay of a senior employee was initially stepped up, gets stepped up in the event of an anomaly arising on promotions of persons junior to him and thus gives rise to a situation where the said senior employee again draws less pay than his ‘first junior’, the benefit is not admissible in terms of the aforesaid decision. The position has been reviewed and after careful consideration, it has been decided that on the pay of the 'first junior', being stepped up with reference to that of his junior, the pay of such senior employee may be stepped up for a second time at par with the 'first junior', provided all the conditions laid down in the general orders, are satisfied with reference to that junior at par with whom the pay of the aforesaid 'first junior' was stepped up. The principle to be followed in such cases is explained by way of a suitable illustration as follows:
The situation is that, the pay of Senior 'A' is first stepped up with reference to the pay of his first Junior 'B' and at a later date, pay of 'B' is stepped up with reference to another Junior 'C'. Then the pay of 'A' may be stepped up for a second time at par with 'B', provided all the conditions under the general orders for stepping up of pay of 'A' vis-a-vis 'C' are fully satisfied.
3.The provisions for stepping up of pay for a second time contained in these orders will take effect from the date of issue of this OM. Past cases may be reviewed in the light of these instructions, but the effect of refixation of pay of the employees concerned under FR 27 and under the normal rules from time to time, will be only notional for periods prior to the date of issue of these orders.
[GI., D.P. & A.R., O.M. No. F. 4/7/83-Estt. (P-1), dated the 31st March, 1984.]
Clarification.- It is clarified that the benefits of stepping up of pay can be allowed to a senior official, second time, provided the anomaly has arisen with reference to the pay of the same junior, with reference to whom the pay of senior was stepped up first time. Type of cases quoted below can be examined and decided at their own merits in consultation with this Department as and when they occur.
Type of cases quoted.- After the first stepping up of 'A', if it is noticed that there is anomaly directly between the Senior 'A' and the second Junior 'C' and the first Junior 'B' has, by then ceased to be in service (by resignation, retirement or death) and consequently the need for stepping up of his pay may not arise, it may be clarified whether the anomaly in the case of Senior Official 'A' is rectifiable with respect to his Junior 'C' direct.
[GI., Ministry of Per. & Trg., Dept. of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, U.O. No. 1427/85-Estt. Pay-1, dated the 22nd July, 1985 and C. & A.G, U.O. No. 521-Audit, 1/120-82, dated the 10th July, 1985.]”
The above clarification requires careful consideration. It is not an amendment to FR-22 itself; rather, it is an executive clarification dealing with a particular situation concerning a second stepping up. Its illustration proceeds on the basis that Senior 'A' was first stepped up with reference to Junior 'B', and that subsequently the pay of 'B' was stepped up with reference to Junior 'C'. In that situation, the clarification permits a corresponding second stepping up of 'A' with reference to 'B', provided the prescribed conditions are satisfied with reference to 'C'. The clarification therefore operates within the factual chain contemplated by the instructions and cannot, by its own force, be treated as a statutory prohibition against every subsequent claim for stepping up merely because a senior had obtained a benefit at some earlier point of service with reference to a different junior.
The distinction between the two situations is material. The present anomaly arose because the applicant was promoted to the post of Senior Accounts Officer before the implementation of the 7th CPC, whereas Shri S.K. Pandit, his junior, was promoted to the same post after 01.01.2016. The resulting difference in pay is precisely the situation addressed by Rule 7 Item 10 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016. The earlier stepping up obtained by the applicant with reference to Shri R. Sridhar in 1996-98 arose in a different factual and pay-setting context. Shri R. Sridhar is now serving in a different cadre and, as the record indicates, did not clear the SAS Examination. He is therefore not the junior against whom the present anomaly arises. To construe the clarification as permanently tying an employee, throughout his career, to the particular junior with reference to whom a previous stepping up was granted would also produce anomalous consequences in cases where that junior retires, resigns, dies, is not promoted further, or otherwise ceases to occupy a comparable position.
The respondents' contention, therefore, requires us to determine whether Government of India Order No. 23 under FR-22 can restrict the benefit expressly conferred by Rule 7 Item 10 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 when all the conditions of that Rule are admittedly fulfilled. The respondents have not been able to point to any statutory provision that creates such a restriction. What they rely upon is an executive clarification. An executive clarification may explain or regulate the application of a statutory provision within its lawful scope; it cannot amend, abridge or override the statutory rule itself. Where the conditions prescribed by the statutory rule are satisfied, the benefit contemplated by the rule cannot be denied merely by relying upon an executive clarification which does not expressly create such a statutory disqualification.
The applicant has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. C.R. Madhava Murthy and another passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2087-2088/2022 dated 06.04.2022. We have considered the decision. Although the factual setting is somewhat different, it is relevant to the general principle governing removal of a pay anomaly and does not support the respondents' contention that every subsequent claim necessarily amounts to an impermissible second stepping up.
The distinction, however, must be kept in view. In that case, the junior to the original writ petitioners had been promoted to the post of Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs on 02.07.2000 and, owing to the ACP Scheme, the juniors began drawing higher pay. The original writ petitioners consequently sought stepping up to remove the anomaly. The decision therefore does not directly determine the precise question before us concerning the effect of Government of India Order No. 23 under FR-22 upon a subsequent claim arising under Rule 7 Item 10 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016.
The applicant has also relied upon the C.A.T. Cuttack Bench order in OA No.558/2015 dated 28.03.2019 titled Rama Chandra Lenka vs. Union of India and others. The short dispute involved in this case is that whether the applicant is entitled for stepping up of pay for second time at par with his junior employees and whether an executive instruction can override the statutory rules regarding stepping up of pay at par with juniors. The order is therefore of direct relevance to the issue of the relationship between the statutory rule and the executive instruction relied upon by the respondents. In that case, the respondents had taken the position that second stepping up was not permissible under FR 22(20) except with the same junior. The Tribunal examined that contention in the light of the statutory provisions and the nature of the anomaly claimed. The relevant observations and conclusion are reproduced below: -
“2.The short dispute involved in this case is that whether the applicant is entitled for stepping up of his pay second time at a par with his junior employees and whether an executive instruction can override the statutory rules regarding stepping up of pay at par with juniors. The applicant was appointed as a Clerk under the respondents and was promoted as Senior Accountant (in short SA) when he detected an anomaly in pay viv-a-vis the pay of his junior Sri Amiya Kumar Behera. The representation in this regard dated 5.11.2013 was accepted by the respondents stepping up his pay w.e.f. 1.4.2010 vide order dated 28.7.2014 (Annexure-R/3 of the Counter filed by the respondents). Then the applicant represented again for stepping up of his pay at par with his junior Sri Raghunath Das vide his representation dated 31.3.2015 (Annexure-A/2).
3.The respondents in their order dated 10.5.2015 (Annexure-A/3) informed the applicant that as his pay has been stepped up once at par with his junior Sri Amiya Kumar Behera, further stepping up with another junior is not permissible. A similar order dated 11.2.2015 (Annexure-A/1) was also passed by the respondents (Annexure-A/1). The applicant has challenged both these orders in this OA on following grounds:-
(i)The statutory rule will prevail over the guidelines as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. N.R. Paramar (CA No. 7514-7515 of 2005) and in the case of Union of India & ors. vs. Dileep Kumar Singh AIR 2015 SC 1420.
(ii)The difference in pay with the applicant’s junior Sri Raghunath Das was due to the fact that the applicant had got the benefit of one additional increment prior to 1.1.2006 after passing the departmental examination while his junior Sri Raghunath Das got the benefit of one increment after passing the examination w.e.f. 1.4.2009 drawing higher pay than applicant.
(iii)The case of the applicant was rejected without application of mind and without considering the fact that in OA No. 435/1994 the Tribunal had held that stepping up of the pay can be done second time. Similar finding was there in the case of E. Sarasian vs. Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes reported in 1991 (17) ATC 673 (Madras).
4.The respondents have filed the Counter not disputing the facts of the case, but opposing the OA on the following grounds:-
(i)Second stepping up of pay is not permissible under the FR22(20) under which further stepping up is permissible with the same junior. Hence, stepping up again at par with Sri Raghunath Das is not permissible. Since the applicant’s pay was stepped up at par with his junior Sri Amiya Kumar Behera, further stepping up at par with another junior is impermissible.
5.The applicant has filed the Rejoinder stating that the anomaly in pay in this case is not due to pay fixation as per the FR-22 (1) (a)(1) but due to higher amount of increment on account of 6th Pay Commission recommendation w.e.f. 1.1.2006 compared to reduced increment availed by the applicant prior to 1.1.2006. Hence, the provisions of the FR 22(20) cited by the respondents will not be applicable in this case.
6.We heard learned counsels for both the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the case of the applicant is covered under the FR 22. It was also submitted by him that during pendency of the OA, it has come to the notice of the applicant that vide circular dated 22.3.2010, copy of which is filed, the CAG has directed for stepping up of the pay of the seniors who are getting less pay only due to additional increment earned by him prior to 1.1.2006 where as the junior was getting more pay on account of the additional increment earned after 1.1.2006 and the respondents were advised to send such proposals to the headquarters for examination. The respondents’ counsel filed a letter dated 6.3.2019 in which the respondent no.2 has informed that the applicant is not eligible for stepping up of pay by comparing with another junior since he was allowed the stepping up of pay at par with his junior Sri Amiya Kumar Behera.
7.The applicant’s counsel has also filed a copy of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Er. Gurcharan Singh Grewal & anr. vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Others reported in (2009) 1 SCC(L&S) 579 to strengthen the applicant’s case. We have perused the judgment in the cited case in which the dispute was that there was prayer for stepping up of pay at par with the junior by two petitioners. While the respondents granted the stepping up to one of the petitioner, they justified the disparity in pay in case of the other petitioner who had joined the promotional post prior to 1996 where as the junior had joined the promotional post in May, 2006 w.e.f 1.9.2001. This argument of the respondents was not accepted and it was held that the senior was entitled for stepping up of pay at par with the junior. From the facts of the cited case, it is clear that the dispute was different from the dispute in the present OA where the applicant was claiming stepping up for second time with another junior and the stand of the respondents is that under FR 22(20), the applicant was not entitled for second stepping up. Hence, the cited case is factually different.
8.The applicant has also cited judgments in some cases in support of his claim for second stepping up of pay vide para 4.9 and 4.10 of the OA and copy of the judgments at Annexure-A/4. The respondents in their Counter have not contradicted these judgments. In the case of E. Sarasian (supra), the dispute was on account of grant of advance increment after passing the examination like in the present case. It was held by the Tribunal as under:-
“The applicant is admittedly senior to Shri Srinivasan, the applicant passed the same Departmental Examination of the next higher grade before 1.1.1973 and he got advance increments at a lower rate in the pre-revised scale applicable to him. On the contrary, his junior Shri Srinivasan, never passed the Departmental Examination for ITI as UDC. He passed the same examination only in 1979, after nine years since the applicant passed the said examination. At that time Shri Srinivasan was a Tax Assistant. There is a blatant argument in the reply that because Shri Srinivasan, passed the examination in 1979 as Tax Assistant and the applicant has passed the same examination as UDC in 1970 the cases are not comparable. Such an argument in extremely unfair and has the effect of punishing the applicant for being more resourceful in passing the same examination much earlier. One cannot understand this argument designed to punish the more diligent. Xxx xxx xxx xxx
In the result the impugned order is quashed and the respondents directed to refix the pay of the applicant in the case of Tax Assistant at Rs.500 per month same as that of Shri Srinivasan with effect from 14.7.1979 and grant consequential benefits by way of refixation of pay and stepping up as directed in this application.”
9.Another judgment of the Tribunal in OA no. 435/1994 before Mumbai Bench has also been cited in the OA (Annexure-A/4). In this case also, the second stepping up of pay was not allowed at par with another junior. It was held by the Tribunal as under:-
“This is a most unreasonable condition incorporating an arbitrary element into the OM. Secondly, the respondents themselves have admitted that there is no provision in the Government of India to circulate a seniority list along with pay scales drawn by them. If that is the situation, it is clear that there are limitations to the knowledge which would be available to any employee for making a representation. There is no doubt, that when the department itself does not take steps to promote a better knowledge of opportunities enjoyed by their colleagues working in other stations, an employee must take a chance of knowing about an anomaly from whatever source he can gather and in such a situation he should not be shut out merely on the ground that he came to know about he anomaly of stepping up with reference to which he would have been benefited more at a later date. From this point of view also the conditions imposed in this OM, dated 31.3.1984, are unreasonable. It is not contended that these conditions are part of FR 22-C. Therefore, the OM dated 31.3.1984, cannot be said to have a greater authority that FR 22-C. WE are, therefore, of the view that so long as the applicant is able to show that he is fulfilling the conditions laid down in FR 22-C vis-a-vis an employee giving rise to an anomalous situation, he is entitled to have his pay stepped up for a second time irrespective of whatever is stated in OM, dated 31.3.1984, so long as the three conditions set out in FR 22-C are fulfilled.”
The FR 22(20) referred by the respondents in their pleadings as well as the impugned order is the OM dated 31.3.1984, listed at serial no. 20 of the decisions of Government of India after the FR 22. It states that the second stepping up of pay is permissible in comparison with the same junior. Below the instructions, the following clarification has been provided:-
“Clarification—It is clarified that the benefit of stepping up of pay can be allowed to a senior official, second time, provided the anomaly has arisen with reference to the pay of the same junior, with reference to whom the pay of the senior was stepped up first time. Type of cases quoted below can be examined and decided at their own merits in consultation with this Department ad and when they occur.”
From the above, it is clear that the instructions apply to anomalies in pay fixation arising on promotion where pay has been fixed under FR 22. In the case before us, however, the applicant's present anomaly arises from the operation of the 7th CPC pay-fixation framework and falls squarely for consideration under Rule 7 Item 10 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016. The Cuttack Bench's reasoning is therefore instructive on the distinction between an executive clarification and the statutory rule governing the applicant's entitlement.
Moreover, the cases cited by the applicant i.e. the order of the Tribunal in OA No. 435/1994 and in the case of E. Sarasian (supra) in which the relief was allowed in similar situations as in the present OA, will be squarely applicable to the present applicant before us. Hence, the applicant in this OA is also entitled for the same relief.
In view of the above discussions, the impugned order dated 11.2.2015 (Annexure-A/1) and order dated 14.5.2015 (Annexure-A/3) are set aside and quashed and the respondents are directed to allow stepping up of the pay of the applicant at par with Sri Raghunath Das with consequential benefits as per law. The OA is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.
The applicant has also filed OA No. 656/2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal dated 23.09.2025 titled Shri Raghavendra S and others vs. The Principal Accountant General (Audit-I) and Another. We find that this case is not concerned with the grant of a second stepping up and, therefore, does not assist in deciding the issue before us.
Another citation submitted is Union of India and others vs. R.K. Jain passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 3325/2014, C.M. No.6853/2014 dated 11.07.2014. This case also does not appear to concern a claim for second stepping up; rather, it relates to parity claimed with a junior who was earlier senior. It is therefore not directly relevant to the present controversy.
The remaining submissions and citations do not materially assist in determining the issue before us. The central question is whether the applicant, having admittedly satisfied all four conditions in Rule 7 Item 10 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 vis-à-vis his junior, Shri S.K. Pandit, can be denied the statutory benefit merely because an earlier and factually distinct stepping up had been granted with reference to Shri R. Sridhar. For the reasons that follow, we answer that question in the negative.
We are of the considered opinion that the clarification on stepping up of pay relied upon by the respondents under FR-22 is not part of the statutory rules but is an executive clarification directed to a specific situation. Its proper application is illustrated by the relationship between Senior 'A', first Junior 'B' and subsequent Junior 'C' within the same pay-fixation framework. Thus, where, under the 7th CPC, the pay of 'A' is stepped up with reference to 'B', and subsequently the pay of 'B' is stepped up with reference to 'C', the clarification permits the consequential second stepping up of 'A' with reference to 'B', subject to satisfaction of the prescribed conditions with reference to 'C'. It does not follow that an employee who obtained stepping up in an entirely different pay-fixation context, many years earlier and with reference to a different junior, is forever precluded from invoking a later statutory provision that specifically addresses the anomaly arising on implementation of a subsequent Pay Commission. Such a construction would add a condition to Rule 7 Item 10 that the rule itself does not contain.
In the present case, the applicant and Shri S.K. Pandit satisfy all four conditions prescribed in Rule 7 Item 10. The respondents have not disputed this. The applicant was promoted as SAO on 01.04.2013, before the implementation of the 7th CPC, while Shri S.K. Pandit, his junior, was promoted as SAO w.e.f. 01.04.2016. The applicant was drawing Rs.80,000/- as on 01.01.2016, while Shri S.K. Pandit was drawing Rs.77,900/- at that stage; thereafter, upon fixation and increment, Shri S.K. Pandit came to draw Rs.84,900/-, whereas the applicant's pay became Rs.82,400/-. The resulting anomaly is directly attributable to the pay-fixation provisions applicable on promotion under the revised pay structure. The statutory conditions are thus fulfilled, and the applicant is entitled to the benefit of stepping up with reference to Shri S.K. Pandit.
We are of the considered opinion that clarification on stepping up of pay which the respondents are trying to quote based on FR-22 is not part of any statutory rules but clarification and the clarification is very specific to a related transaction within the framework of any one Pay Commission, like if for 7th CPC between the applicant (A) and Shri S.K. Pandit (B) pay parity and stepping up is once effected after some time, if Shri S.K. Pandit (B) finds some of his junior (C) having his pay due to FR-22 more than him and ‘B’ claims pay parity with ‘C’ in 7th CPC, then the applicant ‘A’ will also be eligible to claim such pay parity with ‘B’ second time. In our considered opinion, the instruction and restriction on second pay parity is not a general rule, and it is a limited instruction. It would be far-fetched to say that limitations on second claim mandated the claimant to claim stepping up throughout his career with reference to any one individual with whom such claim was preferred in some earlier pay commission, fixation and we consider it has no relevance to if any pay parity and such stepping up has been claimed with reference to any other Pay Commissions revisions earlier, i.e., one decade, two decades, three decades earlier. The said clarification as restriction on second stepping up is not purporting that way. The second stepping up is not completely barred and such clarification has to be read with reference to only with reference to the same person with whom once pay parity has been claimed within the events pertaining to one Pay Commission. As discussed earlier, closer look at FR-22(20) shows that it was more an enabling provision for a second stepping up of conditions mentioned therein was met, and not for prohibiting second stepping up during lifetime if it was not with reference to the same junior.
In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, we pass the following order: -
ORDER
OA No. 493/2023 is allowed. The impugned order No. AN/PAY/III/1079/Step up/SAOs dated 20.03.2023 (Annexure – A3) passed by Respondent No.3 and the impugned letter No. AN/PAY/III/1079/Step up/SAOs dated 27.09.2023 (Annexure – A6) issued by Respondent No.3 are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to step up the pay of the applicant at par with his junior, Shri S.K. Pandit, with all consequential benefits in accordance with law. All associated MA(s), if any pending, shall be treated as disposed of.
The other three OAs are also allowed. The respective impugned orders are quashed, and the respondents are directed to step up the pay of the respective applicants on par with their respective juniors, with consequential benefits in accordance with law. Accordingly, the MAs, if any pending in those three Original Applications, are also disposed of. The respondents shall implement this order expeditiously and, in any event, not later than 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
No order as to costs.