FR 22 pay-option anomalies entitle a senior to stepping-up at par with a junior.

The respondent was senior to R.K. Sharma at each stage of their service and both ultimately served as Assistant Engineers (AEs).

Sharma’s pay became higher because, on promotion to AE, he opted to have his pay fixed after drawing his next increment; the respondent’s pay was fixed from the date of his earlier promotion, with his next increment thereafter.

The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the respondent’s claim for stepping up of pay to match Sharma.

Doordarshan challenged that decision by writ petition, arguing that the 2018 Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum (OM) did not apply to a promotion made in 1994.

1. Whether a senior employee was entitled to have his pay stepped up to that of a junior where the difference arose from the junior’s option to defer fixation of pay on promotion under FR 22.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s order warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

FR 22(I)(a)(1), read with the applicable pay-fixation provisions, permits an employee promoted to a higher post to choose when his pay is fixed, which may result in a pay difference between employees.

The DoPT OM dated 4 November 1993 states that stepping up is generally considered where the senior and junior belong to the same cadre, hold identical posts and pay scales, and the anomaly directly results from application of the relevant Fundamental Rule; it also identifies circumstances in which a pay difference does not constitute an anomaly.

The Court treated this OM as binding on the petitioner.

It also relied on Union of India v. P. Jagdish, AIR 1997 SC 1783, concerning stepping up to remove a pay anomaly between a senior and junior in the promoted cadre, and Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Civil Appeal No. 4559/2026 (16 September 2026), on the constitutional principle that a junior’s higher pay for equal work requires valid justification.

The Court found that the pay disparity arose from Sharma’s option concerning the timing of pay fixation on promotion, rather than from a difference in duties or from higher pay in the feeder post.

It held that the resulting anomaly was directly relatable to FR 22(I)(a)(1), and that the criteria in the opening paragraph of the 1993 DoPT OM were met.

The Court also considered the principle in Jai Prakash Singh against a junior drawing higher pay than a senior in the same post without valid justification, and concluded that the Tribunal’s order did not warrant writ-court interference.

The respondent’s entitlement to stepping up of pay at par with Sharma therefore remained undisturbed.