Administrative instructions granting pay stepping-up to resolve senior-junior anomalies cannot be retrospectively nullified after a decade.

The applicant was appointed as a Programme Executive in All India Radio (AIR) on 01.02.1993

Following a 2005 Director General (DG) order, his pay was re-fixed in 2006 effective from 01.01.1996 to maintain parity with a senior colleague

Upon the implementation of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules 2016, his basic pay was fixed at ₹1,01,400

However, just prior to and after his voluntary retirement on 31.12.2017, the respondents issued four successive impugned orders (between November 2017 and May 2018) reducing his basic pay to ₹92,700 and withdrawing previous financial upgradations (ACP/MACP) and "stepping up" benefits

The respondents contended that the initial stepping up was erroneous and the matter was sub-judice before the Principal Bench

1. Whether the respondents were legally justified in unilaterally withdrawing the "stepping up" of pay and re-fixing the applicant's salary downwards after a decade of the original fixation

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular pension based on the pay fixation dated 11.08.2016

The court primarily applied the principle of "stepping up" of pay to resolve anomalies between Direct Recruits (DR) and Promotees as per administrative instructions issued by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting on 21.05.2004

The precedent set by the CAT Chandigarh Bench in O.A. No. 060/01067/2017, which was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CWP No. 6388 of 2020, establishing that senior Direct Recruits are entitled to pay parity with junior promotees who receive higher pay due to upgradation

The doctrine from State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) regarding the prohibition of recoveries from retired employees where there was no misrepresentation

The Tribunal found that the anomaly—where junior promotees (former TREXs) earned more than senior direct recruits (PEXs) due to historical pay scale overlaps—was a recognized issue resolved by valid administrative instructions in 2004

The court reasoned that the respondents could not "nullify this entire process" after more than a decade, especially when the stepping up was granted to resolve a judicial grievance

The Tribunal noted that the High Court of Punjab & Haryana had already dismissed the government's challenge on identical facts, ruling that if a junior’s upgradation affects a senior’s salary, the principle of stepping up under F.R. 22 must apply

Since there was no misrepresentation by the applicant, the reduction of pay and withholding of regular pension were deemed arbitrary

The court held that the applicant’s pay must be restored to the level fixed on 11.08.2016 under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules 2016. The respondents were directed to grant the applicant regular pension based on that original fixation and finalize the same within three months