A prior stepping-up with another junior does not bar statutory stepping-up under Rule 7.

The four applicants, serving or retired Senior Accounts Officers in the Defence Accounts Department, challenged the rejection of their claims for stepping up of pay with reference to their respective juniors.

In the lead matter, B.N. Suresh was promoted as Senior Accounts Officer on 01.04.2013, before implementation of the Seventh Central Pay Commission, whereas his junior, Shri S.K. Pandit, was promoted to the same post on 01.04.2016, after implementation of the Seventh CPC.

On revision of pay, the applicant’s pay was fixed at ₹80,000 with effect from 01.01.2016 and became ₹82,400 after the increment on 01.07.2016, while the junior’s pay was fixed at ₹84,900, resulting in the junior drawing higher pay.

The applicant sought stepping up under Note 10 below Rule 7 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016.

The respondents rejected the claim, relying on Government of India Order No. 23 under FR-22, on the ground that the applicant had previously received ante-dating/stepping up of increment with reference to another junior and could not claim stepping up for a second time with reference to a different junior.

The Tribunal heard all four applications together because they raised substantially similar issues.

Whether an employee who had earlier received stepping up or ante-dating of increment with reference to one junior could claim a subsequent stepping up with reference to another junior under Note 10 below Rule 7 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016.

Whether Government of India Order No. 23 under FR-22, an executive clarification concerning second-time stepping up, could restrict or override the benefit expressly available under Note 10 below Rule 7 when its statutory conditions were satisfied.

Whether the applicants were entitled to consequential refixation of pay and other benefits at par with their respective juniors.

The Tribunal primarily applied Note 10 below Rule 7 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, which mandates stepping up of a senior’s pay to the level of a junior promoted on or after 01.01.2016 where: (i) both belong to the same cadre and hold identical promotional posts; (ii) the existing and revised pay structures are identical; (iii) the senior was drawing equal or higher pay than the junior at the relevant stage; and (iv) the anomaly directly resulted from pay fixation under FR-22 or another applicable rule.

The Tribunal also considered Government of India Order No. 23 under FR-22, dated 31.03.1984, which permits second-time stepping up in the specific situation where the pay of the junior with reference to whom the senior was first stepped up is subsequently stepped up with reference to another junior.

It held that this executive clarification cannot amend, abridge or override a statutory rule.

The Tribunal relied upon the principles reflected in Union of India v. C.R. Madhava Murthy, Civil Appeals Nos. 2087–2088 of 2022, decided on 06.04.2022, and the reasoning of the Cuttack Bench in Rama Chandra Lenka v. Union of India, OA No. 558/2015, decided on 28.03.2019, concerning pay-anomaly removal and the limited authority of executive instructions vis-à-vis statutory rules.

The Tribunal found that the present anomaly was not a continuation of the earlier ante-dating/stepping-up transaction involving Shri R. Sridhar, but a distinct anomaly arising under the Seventh CPC when the applicant had been promoted before 01.01.2016 and his junior was promoted thereafter.

The applicant and Shri S.K. Pandit belonged to the same cadre, held identical posts, were governed by identical pay structures, and satisfied all four conditions under Note 10 below Rule 7; the respondents did not dispute this.

The Tribunal interpreted Order No. 23 under FR-22 as addressing a specific chain of events within the same pay-fixation framework—senior A being stepped up with reference to junior B, followed by B’s stepping up with reference to junior C—not as a general lifetime prohibition against claiming parity with any subsequent junior.

Since the earlier benefit had arisen in a different pay context and with reference to a different junior, applying the clarification to deny the statutory benefit under Rule 7 would impermissibly add a restriction not found in the rule.

An executive clarification could regulate the application of the statutory provision within its legitimate scope, but could not override the rule when its conditions were admittedly fulfilled.

It held that the applicants could not be denied stepping up under Note 10 below Rule 7 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 merely because they had earlier received a separate pay adjustment with reference to another junior.

OA No. 493/2023 was allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.03.2023 and 27.09.2023 were set aside, and the respondents were directed to step up B.N. Suresh’s pay at par with Shri S.K. Pandit with all consequential benefits.

The other three connected OAs were also allowed, with directions to step up the respective applicants’ pay at par with their juniors and grant consequential benefits.

The respondents were directed to implement the order within eight weeks of receiving a certified copy.

No order as to costs.