Once a pay anomaly is recognized, actual stepping-up benefits follow from the effective date.

The applicant, Sneh Lata, was appointed as a Junior Assistant in the Forest Department on 22.09.1979, received first and second Time Bound/In-situ Promotions, and was promoted as Senior Assistant in 2005.

Her junior, Smt. Jyoti Jamwal, appointed on 01.11.1981, began drawing higher pay after receiving the third Time Bound/In-situ Promotion with effect from 01.12.2008, although the applicant was senior in the cadre.

The applicant pursued departmental representations seeking removal of the pay anomaly and stepping up of her pay.

By Government Order No. 211-FST of 2018 dated 28.06.2018, the respondents sanctioned stepping up of the applicant’s pay notionally with effect from 01.12.2008, but allowed actual monetary benefits only from 01.05.2018 to 31.05.2018, the month preceding her superannuation.

Whether the respondents were justified in granting only notional stepping up of the applicant’s pay from 01.12.2008 while restricting actual monetary benefits to the period from 01.05.2018 to 31.05.2018?

Whether the applicant’s alleged delay and the provisions of Rules 2-41 and 2-43 of the erstwhile J&K Financial Code and Rule 298 of the General Financial Rules, 2017 barred payment of monetary arrears from 01.12.2008?

Once a competent authority admits a pay anomaly and fixes the effective date for stepping up of pay, denial of the consequential monetary benefits from that same date requires a cogent and legally sustainable justification.

It considered Article 77-B of the J&K Civil Service Regulations, under which the departmental authorities had recommended stepping up of pay to remove the anomaly.

Rules 2-41 and 2-43 of the erstwhile J&K Financial Code concerning stale or delayed monetary claims, and Rule 298 of the General Financial Rules, 2017 concerning retrospective sanctions for pay revision or concessions, were held applicable only in context and could not defeat a claim which had already been examined and partly accepted by the Department on merits.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s entitlement to stepping up was no longer in dispute because the respondents themselves had accepted that she was senior to Smt. Jyoti Jamwal, that she was drawing lesser pay, and that the anomaly arose from 01.12.2008.

Having notionally stepped up the applicant’s pay from that date, the respondents failed to provide a rational basis for withholding the financial consequences for nearly ten years while granting them only for the final month of service.

The distinction between notional and actual benefits was therefore found unjustified because the underlying anomaly existed throughout the period beginning 01.12.2008.

The plea of delay was also rejected in the circumstances, since the applicant had submitted representations and the matter had been processed and recommended departmentally before the Government Order was issued.

The Financial Code provisions and Rule 298 could not be invoked to reopen or defeat a claim that the respondents had already examined, accepted, and acted upon by fixing the effective date as 01.12.2008.

The respondents were directed to give actual monetary effect to the applicant’s stepped-up pay from 01.12.2008 until her superannuation on 31.05.2018, recalculate her pension and other retiral benefits, and release the consequential arrears after adjustment of amounts already paid.

The exercise was to be completed within three months of receipt of the certified order; failing that, the unpaid amount would carry simple interest at 6% per annum from expiry of the three-month period until payment.

No order as to costs was made.