Implementation of CAT orders on pay parity kept in abeyance pending Supreme Court adjudication of identical legal issues.

The Petitioners (Union of India and Southern Railway) challenged the common orders dated 22.02.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chennai Bench, in O.A.Nos.310/1471/2014 and 310/1472/2014

The CAT had directed the Petitioners to consider the respondents' claims for stepping up of pay on par with their juniors, placing reliance on prior Madras High Court rulings in W.P.Nos.18611 and 18612/2011

The Petitioners moved the High Court contending that identical legal issues regarding pay parity are currently sub-judice before the Supreme Court of India

1. Whether the directions of the Central Administrative Tribunal to implement pay stepping-up can be enforced while identical issues are pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

2. What is the appropriate status of the impugned Tribunal orders pending the final outcome of the related Special Leave Petitions (SLPs)

The Court applied the principle of judicial discipline and the doctrine of sub-judice, specifically noting that when a higher court stays or seizes a specific legal question, lower forums must await the final determination.

It referenced SLP (Civil) Diary No(s).5973 of 2018 and SLP (C) No.21803 of 2014, where the Apex Court had granted a stay on operation of similar judgments (originally passed by the High Court of Karnataka) regarding the stepping up of pay

The Court observed that the core grievance of the respondents—stepping up of pay to match juniors—is a matter that has already reached the Supreme Court via various appeals and tagged matters

Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically granted a stay on the operation of judgments involving this very issue, the Court reasoned that the petitioner department cannot be compelled to implement the CAT's directions at this juncture

The Court determined that the interests of both parties would be protected by maintaining the status quo of the CAT’s order until the Apex Court provides a final verdict, after which the department would be legally bound to act in accordance with that final decision

The Court held that once the Supreme Court disposes of the pending appeals, the petitioner department must take all necessary actions regarding the respondents’ grievances in light of that judgment