NARASIMHA MURTHY S vs CONTROLLER GENERAL OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (CGDA))
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
1
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NOS.170/00493/2023,
170/00652/2023, 170/00119/2024, 170/00426/2024
ORDER RESERVED ON: 25.08.2026
DATE OF ORDER: 03.09.2026
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
(OA No. 493/2023)
B.N. Suresh,
S/o (Late) B.S. Nagaraj,
Aged about 53 years,
Working as Senior Accounts Officer,
O/O IFA HQ Training Command (Air Force)
J.C. Nagar Post,
Bangalore – 560 006. …Applicant
(By Advocate Shri B.S. Venkatesh Kumar)
Vs.
1. Union of India rep by its Secretary,
Ministry of Defence (FIN), FADS,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2. Controller General of Defence Accounts,
Ulan Batar Road,
Palam, Delhi Cantt – 110 010.
3. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts,
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
2
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
No. 107, Lower Agaram Road,
Victoria Layout,
Bengaluru – 560 007.
4. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts,
Draupadi Ghat,
Allahabad – 211 014. ...Respondents
(By Shri S. Sugumaran, Senior Panel Counsel)
(OA No. 652/2023)
C.N. Krishna Kumar,
S/o C.B. Nanjundaiah,
Aged about 62 years,
Senior Accounts Officer (Retired),
R/a No. 8(44), “Shishira”,
III Block, IV Cross,
Jawaraiah Garden,
T.R. Nagar, Bangalore – 560 070. … Applicant
(By Advocate Shri B.S. Venkatesh Kumar)
Vs.
1. Union of India rep by its Secretary,
Ministry of Defence (FIN), FADS,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2. Controller General of Defence Accounts,
Ulan Batar Road,
Palam, Delhi Cantt – 110 010.
3. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts,
No. 107, Lower Agaram Road,
Victoria Layout, Bengaluru – 560 007.
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
3
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
4. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts,
Draupadi Ghat,
Allahabad – 211 014. …Respondents
(By Shri S. Sugumaran, Senior Panel Counsel)
(OA No. 119/2024)
C.N. Prasanna Kumar,
S/o C.V. Narasinga Rao,
Aged about 62 years,
Retired Senior Accounts Officer,
Air Force Jalahalli, Bangalore,
R/a No.6, “Srinivasa”,
st nd
1 Main, 2 Cross,
MPM Layout, Mallathahalli,
Bangalore – 560 056. ...Applicant
(By Advocate Shri B.S. Venkatesh Kumar)
Vs.
1. Union of India rep by its Secretary,
Ministry of Defence (FIN), FADS,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2. Principal Controller General of Defence Accounts,
Defence Accounts (Air Force),
107, Rajpur Road,
Dehradun – 248 001.
3. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts,
No. 107, Lower Agaram Road,
Victoria Layout, Bengaluru – 560 007.
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
4
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
4. The Joint Controller of Defence Accounts (AF),
Vayusena Nagar,
Nagpur – 440 007.
5. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts,
Draupadi Ghat,
Allahabad – 211 014. …Respondents
(By Shri S. Sugumaran, Senior Panel Counsel)
(OA No. 426/2024)
Narasimha Murthy S,
S/o B.N. Srinivasa Murthy,
Aged about 63 years,
Retired Senior Accounts Officer,
Local Audit Office, Air Force,
Jalahalli, Bangalore – 560 013,
rd
R/a No.825, 3 Cross,
Coconut Garden, T. Dasarasahalli,
Bangalore – 560 057. …Applicant
(By Advocate Shri B.S. Venkatesh Kumar)
Vs.
1. Union of India rep by its Secretary,
Ministry of Defence (FIN), FADS,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2. Controller General of Defence Accounts,
Ulan Batar Road,
Palam, Delhi Cantt – 110 010.
3. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts,
(Air Force) 107, Rajpur Road,
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
5
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
Dehradun – 248 001.
4. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts,
No. 107, Lower Agaram Road,
Victoria Layout,
Bengaluru – 560 007.
5. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts,
Draupadi Ghat,
Allahabad – 211 014. …Respondents
(By Shri S. Sugumaran, Senior Panel Counsel)
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
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
6
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
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.”
2. 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.
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
7
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
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
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
8
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
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.”
3. The brief facts of the applicant's case, as set out in the
synopsis, are as follows: -
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
9
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
“ 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.”
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. We have carefully perused the pleadings, documents on
record and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both
sides.
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
10
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
7. 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.
8. 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
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
11
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
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.
9. 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
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
12
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
(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.
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
13
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
“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.”
10. 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
clearly 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;
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
14
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
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.”
11. 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.
12. 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: -
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
15
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
“(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:
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
16
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
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.]”
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
17
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
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.
13. 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
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
18
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
(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.
14. 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
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
19
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
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.
15. 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
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
20
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
FR-22 upon a subsequent claim arising under Rule 7 Item 10 of the
CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016.
16. 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
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
21
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
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,
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
22
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
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
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
23
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
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
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
24
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
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
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
25
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
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.”
10. 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:-
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
26
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
“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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
27
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
17. 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.
18. 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.
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
28
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
Sridhar. For the reasons that follow, we answer that question in the
negative.
19. 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.
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
29
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
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.
20. 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)
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
30
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
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
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
31
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
prohibiting second stepping up during lifetime if it was not with
reference to the same junior.
21. 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.
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja
32
OA.Nos.170/00493/2023 and connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
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.
Sd/- Sd/-
( DR. SANJIV KUMAR ) ( JUSTICE S. SUJATHA )
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ms/
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Date: 2026.09.07
14:59:14+05'30'
Mikasha
Suneja