Anomaly due to higher advance increments to juniors warrants pay stepping-up for seniors.

The applicants, working in various capacities within income tax offices in Kolkata, were granted two advance increments upon passing departmental examinations for Inspector of Income Tax and Income Tax Officer while in the Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- (PB-1).

Subsequently, some of their juniors, who passed the same examinations later while in the higher Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- (PB-2) after the 7th CPC implementation, received advance increments at a higher rate.

This resulted in the juniors drawing higher pay than the seniors.

Aggrieved by this pay anomaly, the applicants sought relief to step up their pay to be on par with their juniors.

The respondents, citing an Office Memorandum dated 26.10.2018 (Annexure R/1), contended that stepping up pay is not admissible when a junior draws more pay due to advance increments for higher qualifications or passing departmental examinations under different conditions and pay scales.

The applicants filed a rejoinder reiterating their claims.

They highlighted that identical issues were decided in their favour by the CAT, Bangalore Bench in O.A.No.170/50/2017, affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.C.T. No.49498 of 2019, and by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in W.P.C.T.42 of 2023, upholding the Kolkata Bench's order in O.A.No.388 of 2021.

The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka judgment was implemented via Memorandum dated 28.12.2021.

The respondents, however, interpreted the Calcutta High Court’s decision as 'in personam', not to be treated as a precedent for similarly placed employees.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to have their pay stepped up to be on par with their juniors, who draw higher pay due to advance increments granted on passing departmental examinations in a higher pay band/grade pay?

2. Whether previous judgments from the CAT Bangalore Bench (affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka) and the CAT Kolkata Bench (affirmed by the Hon’sble High Court at Calcutta) regarding similar pay anomaly due to departmental examinations serve as precedents for the current applicants?

The court primarily considered the consolidated guidelines on stepping up of pay issued via Office Memorandum dated 26.10.2018 (Annexure R/1), specifically Para 2(i)(c) and Para 3(h), which generally disallow stepping up of pay where the junior draws more pay due to advance increments for acquiring higher qualifications or passing departmental examinations under different conditions.

However, the court significantly relied on the precedents set by the Hon'sble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.C.T. No.49498 of 2019 (affirming CAT Bangalore Bench in O.A.No.170/50/2017) and the Hon'sble High Court at Calcutta in W.P.C.T.42 of 2023 (affirming CAT Kolkata Bench in O.A.No.388 of 2021), which granted relief for identical pay anomalies arising from advance increments granted for passing departmental examinations.

The principle established by these higher court judgments was that such anomalies, where juniors receive higher advance increments due to revised pay scales (e.g., 7th CPC) than seniors who passed examinations earlier, warrant stepping up of the senior's pay.

The Tribunal recognized that the core issue involved an anomaly where juniors were drawing higher pay than seniors due to the timing of passing departmental examinations and the subsequent implementation of different pay scales (7th CPC) leading to higher advance increment rates for juniors.

While the respondents cited the OM dated 26.10.2018, which generally discourages pay stepping up in cases of advance increments, the Tribunal instead placed emphasis on the binding precedents from the Hon’sble High Courts.

The High Court of Karnataka had specifically dismissed the argument that such a disparity was not an anomaly, noting that penalizing seniors who qualified earlier was illogical.

The Hon'sble High Court at Calcutta also upheld a similar order, rejecting the argument that the OM dated 26.10.2018 would override the principle of pay parity in such circumstances.

The Tribunal concluded that these orders, having attained finality and even been implemented in one instance, were not 'in personam' but established a clear legal position applicable to similarly situated employees.

Therefore, the administrative policy cited by the respondents could not supersede the judicial pronouncements on the matter.

These prior judicial decisions, which attained finality and included implementation, established that the pay anomaly faced by the applicants warranted stepping up of their pay.

Consequently, the Tribunal directed the respondents to extend the benefit of these judgments to the applicants within 60 days from the date of communication of the order.

The Original Application was, accordingly, disposed of.