A senior employee is not entitled to pay stepping-up when a junior receives higher pay through MACP.

The applicant, a retired Assistant Accounts Officer (AAO), had initially served as a Clerk and subsequently worked as a Senior Accountant before being promoted as AAO with effect from 1 January 2008.

His junior, Shri B.S. Sharma, had received the benefit of the second ACP with effect from 19 June 2003, resulting in higher pay than that of the applicant.

Pursuant to the decision in O.A. No. 2124/2011 and related proceedings, the respondents granted the applicant stepping-up of pay at par with Shri Sharma with effect from 19 June 2003, but restricted the benefit up to 31 December 2007, when the applicant was promoted as AAO.

After implementation of the Seventh Central Pay Commission, the applicant claimed that a pay anomaly continued because Shri Sharma, a Senior Accountant, received Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/- on account of the third MACP, whereas the applicant’s pay as AAO was lower.

His representation seeking continuation of the stepping-up benefit beyond 31 December 2007 was rejected by order dated 1 February 2017.

The applicant therefore sought quashing of that order and extension of pay parity with consequential benefits.

Whether the applicant, after promotion as AAO, was entitled to continued stepping-up of pay at par with Shri B.S. Sharma, a Senior Accountant, merely because the latter received higher pay pursuant to the third MACP.

Whether the respondents’ rejection of the applicant’s representation by order dated 1 February 2017 was legally sustainable.

Whether the Original Application was liable to fail for non-joinder of Shri B.S. Sharma, whose pay parity was directly in issue.

Stepping-up of pay is not ordinarily available to a senior merely because a junior draws higher pay as a result of being granted MACP benefits.

The earlier benefit arising from the ACP-related decision in O.A. No. 2124/2011 concerned pay anomaly within the Senior Accountant cadre and did not establish a continuing right to parity after promotion to a different cadre.

The Karnataka High Court’s decision in Sandhya S. Murthy v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. No. 19456/2022, held that a senior is not entitled to stepping-up merely because a junior receives higher pay on account of MACP.

A person whose pay position is directly affected should be impleaded as a necessary party.

The Tribunal found that the applicant and Shri B.S. Sharma were no longer situated in the same cadre after the applicant’s promotion as AAO with effect from 1 January 2008.

The applicant belonged to the AAO cadre, whose seniority and gradation list were maintained on an all-India basis, whereas Shri Sharma remained a Senior Accountant.

The earlier stepping-up order was therefore correctly limited to the period during which the applicant and his junior were in the same cadre, namely up to 31 December 2007.

The subsequent higher pay received by Shri Sharma resulted from the grant of the third MACP and could not, under the applicable principle, create an enforceable right in favour of the applicant for further stepping-up.

The Tribunal additionally noted that Shri Sharma had not been impleaded despite the applicant seeking parity directly with him.

The challenge to the order dated 1 February 2017 consequently failed.

The Original Application was dismissed on merits and also suffered from non-joinder of Shri Sharma; there was no order as to costs.