A senior employee’s pay must be stepped up when a junior in the same cadre and post draws higher pay.

The applicant, Nirmal Dev, was appointed on 1 June 1979 in the Controller of Stores/PCMM office, North-Eastern Railway, and was subsequently promoted through the same cadre along with Shri Shivakant Singh, who was junior to him.

Both employees were promoted as Office Superintendent-I on 6 September 2005 and were drawing the same basic pay of Rs. 7,075 immediately before promotion.

The applicant opted for fixation of pay from the date of promotion, whereas Shri Shivakant Singh opted for fixation from the date of his next increment in the lower post.

Consequently, the applicant’s pay was fixed at Rs. 7,300, while the junior’s pay was fixed at Rs. 7,500 with effect from 1 November 2005.

The applicant was later transferred/deputed to COFMOW, New Delhi, while retaining his lien with the North-Eastern Railway.

He claimed that, despite being senior and belonging to the same cadre and promotional stream, he was drawing less pay than Shri Shivakant Singh.

He submitted representations seeking stepping up of pay and consequential benefits, but the respondents rejected the claim on the ground that the difference resulted from the different statutory options exercised under Rule 1313/FR 22(I)(a)(1), and that the applicant was serving in an ex-cadre post in COFMOW.

During the proceedings, the Tribunal directed the respondents to disclose the pay fixation history of both employees.

The respondents confirmed that both had identical pay before promotion and that the difference arose after their respective pay-fixation options.

Whether the applicant, being senior to Shri Shivakant Singh and having served in the same cadre and promotional posts, was entitled to stepping up of his pay at par with that of his junior under FR 22(I)(a)(1)/Rule 1313.

Whether the difference in pay, arising from the different options exercised by the applicant and his junior at the time of promotion, disentitled the applicant from claiming pay parity.

Whether the applicant was entitled to consequential arrears and corresponding fixation of settlement and pensionary benefits.

The Tribunal applied FR 22(I)(a)(1), formerly FR 22-C, and the Government of India Office Memorandum dated 4 February 1966 concerning removal of anomaly by stepping up the pay of a senior employee who draws less pay than a junior.

Under the rule, stepping up is permissible where the senior and junior belong to the same cadre, occupy identical posts in the same cadre, draw identical scales of pay, and the anomaly is directly attributable to the application of the pay-fixation rule.

The Tribunal relied on C.R. Madhava Murthy v. Union of India, W.P. Nos. 33038–33039 of 2016, affirmed in Union of India v. C.R. Madhava Murthy, Civil Appeal Nos. 2087–2088 of 2022, where the Supreme Court held that a senior employee may obtain stepping up of pay when a junior draws higher pay owing to pay upgradation or an analogous pay-fixation circumstance, provided the statutory conditions are satisfied.

The Tribunal also considered Rule 1313/FR 22(I)(a)(1), which permits an employee promoted to a higher post to exercise an option regarding the date of pay fixation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant and Shri Shivakant Singh had been appointed in the same cadre, progressed through the same promotional posts, and were drawing identical pay immediately before their promotion as Office Superintendent-I.

Although the respondents attributed the disparity to the different options exercised under Rule 1313/FR 22(I)(a)(1), the Tribunal treated the resulting disparity as a pay anomaly falling within the principle of stepping up recognised in FR 22(I)(a)(1) and the cited precedents.

It held that the fact that the applicant was serving in COFMOW, or that his pay was administered there, did not defeat his entitlement where the relevant comparison was with a junior from the same parent cadre and promotional stream.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s affirmation of stepping up in Madhava Murthy, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant’s claim was “squarely covered” and that his pay should be fixed at par with his junior.

The order did not separately quantify or expressly direct payment of arrears or revision of pensionary benefits, although those consequential claims formed part of the reliefs sought.

No order as to costs was made, and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.