No entitlement to pay stepping-up where seniors in service drew higher pay at lower posts.

The applicant, Shri Onkar Nath Singh, joined the Naval Material Research Laboratory as a DRTC employee on 08.03.1982.

He retired as a Technical Officer ‘C’ on 30.11.2016.

The applicant sought the "stepping up" of his pay to match that of his alleged juniors, Shri S.A. Loankar and Shri V. Bhaskar, effective from September 2006, along with consequential retiral benefits and interest.

He contended that despite being senior in post, the respondents paid him a lower salary, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The respondents countered that the cited individuals were senior in service (joining in 1980 and 1968, respectively) and were already drawing higher pay in lower posts before the applicant's promotion.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the stepping up of his pay at par with Shri S.A. Loankar and Shri V. Bhaskar under the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008.

2. Whether the disparity in pay between the applicant and the two named individuals constitutes an actionable anomaly or discrimination.

The court primarily applied Note 10 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, and DoPT O.M. No. 4/7/92-Estt. (Pay-I) dated 04.11.1993, which stipulate that stepping up is only permissible when a junior’s pay is fixed at a higher stage than a senior's due to the application of pay fixation rules, provided both belong to the same cadre and the senior was drawing more or equal pay in the lower post.

In the Defence Research and Technical Cadre (DRTC), promotions are based on an Assessment Board rather than pure seniority.

The court distinguished the precedent of Gurcharan Singh Grewal vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, clarifying that the rule prohibiting a senior from receiving less pay than a junior does not apply if the "junior" was already drawing higher pay due to length of service or prior promotion.

The Tribunal observed that Shri S.A. Loankar joined in 1980 and Shri V. Bhaskar in 1968, both prior to the applicant’s 1982 entry; thus, they were senior in service and already drawing higher pay at the initial stages.

Shri Loankar was promoted to Technical Officer ‘B’ in 2002, four years before the applicant reached the same grade in 2006.

The Tribunal reasoned that because the alleged "juniors" were drawing higher pay in the lower posts before the applicant was promoted, the conditions for stepping up under the CCS (RP) Rules and DoPT instructions were not met.

Since DRTC promotions are merit-based assessments rather than seniority-linked, the applicant could not claim parity simply because he currently occupied the same grade.

The court found no disparity or anomaly warranting interference; consequently, the Original Application was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.