Allahabad CAT Rejects Lab Assistant’s Claim To Match Junior’s Pay, Citing Different Pre-Promotion Pay And Grade Pay

The applicant, appointed as a Lab Assistant in 1977 and later promoted to SC Grade-III (Lab), sought promotion to T-1 (Dairy Technician).

In an earlier proceeding, the Tribunal directed that he be considered for promotion from the date his junior was promoted, subject to the prescribed selection criteria.

He was subsequently granted notional promotion to T-1 from 29 March 2006, with financial benefits from the date he joined the higher post, 22 November 2011.

He challenged the respondents’ pay-fixation orders dated 5 July and 13 August 2012, claiming protection of his lower-post pay, notional increments, and pay parity with his junior, Triveni Yadav.

The respondents maintained that the fixation was consistent with the applicable rules and that the applicant’s earlier MACP benefit was withdrawn upon his appointment to the technical service.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides the basis for the applicant’s approach to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal considered the earlier judgment in O.A. No. 821 of 2006, which provided for notional promotion before the applicant assumed the higher post and actual benefits from the date he did so.

It also considered the applicable Fundamental Rules, including Fundamental Rule 27, and the relevant technical-service and pay-fixation provisions; the Tribunal stated that pay protection or stepping up is not automatic and must be assessed under the applicable rules and the employee’s service circumstances.

The applicant relied on Gurcharan Singh Grewal v. Punjab State Electricity Board, (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 578, concerning pay parity between a senior and a junior, but the Tribunal treated its application as dependent on the governing rules and facts.

The Tribunal found that the applicant and Triveni Yadav had different pre-promotion pay and Grade Pay positions and that their pay fixation therefore had to be assessed by reference to their respective service histories and applicable rules.

It accepted the applicant’s notional promotion from 29 March 2006 and actual financial benefits from 22 November 2011, but found that the difference between the two employees’ pay did not, by itself, establish a right to parity.

Although it noted that reliance on Fundamental Rule 27 alone did not establish either an automatic right to stepping up or the legality of every aspect of the fixation, the applicant had not shown that the fixation or withdrawal of the MACP benefit contravened the applicable rules or the earlier judgment.

It dismissed the Original Application, made no order as to costs, and disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications.