A senior’s pay may be stepped up to correct an anomaly caused by a junior’s ACP upgradation.

The original applicants, who retired as Senior Accountants, had entered service as Lower Division Clerks and were promoted to Senior Accountant. Their junior, Uday Narayan Roy, was directly recruited as a Junior Accountant and later promoted to Senior Accountant.

In 2007, Roy received financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme, after which his pay exceeded that of the applicants. The applicants later received the third MACP benefit, temporarily reversing the disparity, but the difference reappeared when Roy also received MACP benefits.

After successive representations and proceedings, the General Manager rejected the applicants’ claims in speaking orders dated 30 November 2022. The Tribunal quashed those orders and directed the authorities to take appropriate steps in light of its observations.

The Union of India and departmental authorities challenged the Tribunal’s orders in these connected writ petitions.

Whether senior employees are entitled to have their pay stepped up to that of a junior in the same post where the junior’s higher pay resulted from financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme.

Whether the applicants’ different entry routes, subsequent MACP benefits, or delay in pursuing their claims barred relief.

Under the Government of India’s instructions on removal of pay anomalies, read with FR 22, a senior’s pay may be stepped up to that of a junior where the prescribed conditions are met, including that both belong to the same cadre, hold identical posts, and draw pay under identical scales, and the anomaly is attributable to the relevant pay-fixation rule.

In Union of India v. C.R. Madhava Murthy, (2022) 6 SCC 183, the Supreme Court upheld stepping up in a comparable case where a junior drew higher pay following ACP upgradation; a claim to remove an anomaly is distinct from a claim for an additional ACP benefit.

Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair, (2020) 5 SCC 421, concerned the grade of financial upgradation under MACP; the separate question of stepping up pay to match a junior had been de-tagged and was not decided in that case.

The Court also relied on the principles of non-arbitrariness and pay parity under Articles 14 and 39(d), and on M.R. Gupta v. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 628, and Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, regarding continuing pay or pension-related claims.

The applicants sought equalisation of pay, not an additional ACP upgradation; therefore, Clause 8 of the ACP Scheme did not automatically bar their claim.

The Court applied C.R. Madhava Murthy, finding that the disparity arose when Roy received ACP benefits while all parties were serving as Senior Accountants, and that the later MACP benefits merely obscured the anomaly temporarily.

Their earlier promotion from LDC and Roy’s direct recruitment did not defeat the claim because the disparity arose after they had reached the same post; the Court also noted the substantially similar service-entry circumstances in Madhava Murthy.

M.V. Mohanan Nair did not govern because the issue of stepping up had been separated from the questions decided there.

The applicants had pursued their claims through representations and proceedings, and the pay disparity continued to affect their pensions, so the delay objection was rejected.

All six writ petitions were dismissed, with no order as to costs.