A similarly placed senior employee is entitled to pay stepping-up in line with juniors.

The applicant, a retired Superintendent of Central Tax, challenged the order dated 16 October 2024 refusing his claim for pay stepping-up.

He sought, among other reliefs, a declaration that the Department of Revenue’s order dated 10 April 2023—treating the Karnataka High Court’s judgment in C.R. Madhava Murthy v. Union of India as confined to the parties in that case—was invalid, and a direction to step up his pay to match his junior, with consequential pensionary benefits.

The Tribunal considered the matter in light of its decision in R.S. Venkataram v. Union of India, OA No. 69/2023 and connected matters, dated 20 December 2024.

Whether the applicant was entitled to pay stepping-up on par with his junior, with consequential benefits, in light of the principles applied in C.R. Madhava Murthy and the Tribunal’s decision in R.S. Venkataram.

Whether the Tribunal should grant relief consistently with its decision in R.S. Venkataram.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the basis for an aggrieved person to apply to the Tribunal for redress.

The Tribunal relied on the Karnataka High Court’s judgment in C.R. Madhava Murthy v. Union of India, W.P. Nos. 33038–33039/2016, dated 31 July 2021, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. C.R. Madhava Murthy, (2022) 6 SCC 183; the review petitions were dismissed on 21 February 2023.

It also followed its own decision in R.S. Venkataram, which had directed pay stepping-up for the applicants there, subject to the decisions in specified pending special leave petitions.

The governing principle applied in this case was judicial consistency: similarly situated claims should receive consistent treatment absent a reason to take a different view.

The Tribunal treated the issue as already addressed in R.S. Venkataram, where it had considered the Madhava Murthy decisions and the respondents’ argument that the earlier ruling was confined to its parties and did not displace the relevant ACP/MACP provisions.

Finding no reason to depart from its prior decision, the Tribunal applied the principle of consistency and concluded that the applicant was entitled to similar relief.

The relief remains subject to the conditions stated in the earlier order, including the outcome of the specified pending SLPs.

No order was made as to costs.