A senior appointed later in the lower post cannot claim pay parity despite earlier promotion.

The applicant was appointed as a Mazdoor on 06.06.1979, while private respondent Shri Jagdish was appointed to the same post earlier, on 19.01.1979. The applicant was promoted as Mate (Semi-Skilled) in April 1992 and as Carpenter (Semi-Skilled) on 01.09.1997. Shri Jagdish was promoted as Mate in January 1995 and as Carpenter (Semi-Skilled) on 01.01.2002.

The applicant claimed that, on 01.01.2002, his pay was fixed at Rs.3,650 whereas Shri Jagdish’s pay was initially fixed at Rs.3,800, and sought stepping up of his pay with effect from that date under Note 23 below FR 22 and FR 22(C).

The respondents contended that Shri Jagdish’s pay had been wrongly fixed at Rs.3,800 and was subsequently corrected to Rs.3,725, which was also the applicant’s pay from 01.01.2002; hence, no pay anomaly remained.

They further argued that the application was barred by limitation, since the alleged cause of action arose in 2002 and the OA was filed only in 2016.

Whether the applicant was entitled to stepping up of his pay at par with Shri Jagdish with effect from 01.01.2002 under Note 23(a)–(c) below FR 22 and FR 22(C).

Whether Note 23(2)(d), which restricts pay parity where the senior was appointed later than the junior in the lower post, applied to the applicant’s case.

Whether any continuing pay anomaly survived after Shri Jagdish’s pay was re-fixed at Rs.3,725, equal to the applicant’s pay.

Whether the OA was liable to be dismissed for limitation, having been filed more than fourteen years after the alleged cause of action.

The Tribunal applied Note 23(a)–(c) below FR 22, under which pay stepping-up may be granted where the senior and junior belong to the same cadre, hold identical posts with identical scales of pay, and the anomaly is directly attributable to the application of FR 22(C); the rule does not apply where the junior had a higher pay in the lower post for an independent reason.

It also applied Note 23(2)(d), which provides that where the purported senior was appointed later than the junior in the lower post and consequently drew lesser pay, he cannot claim pay parity in the higher post merely because he was promoted earlier.

The Tribunal also relied on the limitation principles stated in Boop Singh v. Union of India and the decisions in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, namely, that a subsequent representation or its rejection does not revive or extend limitation for an old cause of action.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was appointed later than Shri Jagdish in the initial post of Mazdoor and was therefore junior at the entry stage.

Although the applicant was promoted earlier as Mate and subsequently as Carpenter, that fact did not attract the stepping-up mechanism because Note 23(2)(d) specifically excludes pay parity where the alleged senior entered the lower post after the junior.

In any event, the alleged disparity of Rs.3,800 was not a valid subsisting anomaly: Shri Jagdish’s pay had been incorrectly fixed and was later re-fixed at Rs.3,725 with effect from 01.01.2002, the same pay drawn by the applicant.

Consequently, the essential factual basis for stepping up—namely, a junior drawing higher pay than the senior—was absent.

The Tribunal also noted that the claim was raised after an excessive delay, as the alleged cause of action arose in 2002 and the OA was filed in 2016; the later representation could not cure the limitation defect.

Note 23(2)(d) applied because he had been appointed later than Shri Jagdish in the lower post, and there was in any event no surviving pay disparity after Shri Jagdish’s pay was corrected to Rs.3,725, equal to the applicant’s pay.

The OA was dismissed for want of merit, with no order as to costs.