Pay fixation is a continuing cause of action; seniors are entitled to parity with higher-paid juniors.

The petitioners, Ram Kunwar Singh (P1) and Kulvir Singh Malik (P2), were appointed as Sub-Inspectors (Executive) in the CISF in 1984.

P1 was promoted to Inspector in 1992 and served on deputation with the CBI from 2005 to 2014.

P2 served on deputation with the Delhi Police (1985–1992) and was promoted to Inspector in 1993.

Both were subsequently promoted to Assistant Commandant (AC) in 2013 and Deputy Commandant (DC) in 2021.

According to the AC seniority list, P1 was at Serial No. 37 and P2 was at Serial No. 57.

They discovered that their juniors, Md. Abdus Salam (Serial No. 74) and Ashwani Kumar, were drawing a higher basic pay than them.

The respondents rejected their representations for "stepping up" of pay on 22.07.2021, stating that the juniors had exercised different pay fixation options or had benefited from ante-dated increments that the petitioners had not received due to their cases not being forwarded by their units.

The petitioners challenged these rejection letters via a writ of certiorari.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the stepping up of their pay to match that of their juniors who were drawing higher basic pay despite being lower in the seniority list.

2. Whether the petitioners' claim is barred by delay and laches given that the anomaly originated during the implementation of the 1986 and 2008 CCS (Revised Pay) Rules.

The court primarily applied Fundamental Rule (FR) 22 and FR 23, which provide for the stepping up of a senior officer's pay to match a junior officer's pay when an anomaly arises directly from pay fixation rules.

It relied on DoPT Office Memorandums dated 26.10.2016 and 22.10.2019 regarding the removal of anomalies in the pay of seniors vis-à-vis juniors under the 7th CPC and MACP schemes.

Furthermore, the court applied the principle from Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, which establishes that pay fixation is a "continuing wrong" and a "continuing cause of action," meaning claims for arrears are restricted but the right to correct the pay scale is not lost to time.

It also followed the precedent in Tejbir Singh Dagar v. Union of India, affirming that a senior should not draw less pay than a junior due to administrative reasons.

The court observed that the seniority of the petitioners over Md. Abdus Salam and Ashwani Kumar was undisputed.

It noted that the respondents admitted P1 was eligible for ante-dated increments at par with other juniors in 1986, but failed to grant it because the "concerned units" did not forward the case—a failure the court refused to attribute to the petitioners, especially as they were on deputation at the time.

The court rejected the respondents' argument that the anomaly arose because the petitioners failed to exercise specific options, ruling that the duty to fix pay accurately according to the force's seniority lies with the department.

It held that the reasoning provided in the impugned letters was unsustainable as it penalized seniors for administrative oversights.

Since pay fixation is a continuing cause of action, the court brushed aside the issue of delay while protecting the exchequer by limiting back-wages.

It directed the respondents to notionally re-fix the petitioners' pay at par with their juniors from the date the juniors began drawing a higher salary.

The court ordered the payment of actual arrears effective from three years prior to the date of the rejection of their representation (i.e., from 22.07.2018 onwards).

For P1, who had superannuated, the respondents were directed to modify the Pension Payment Order (PPO) and grant revised retiral benefits.

Compliance was mandated within eight weeks, failing which 6% per annum interest would apply.