Pay must be stepped up to match juniors where precedent establishes entitlement to parity.

The applicant, a retired Superintendent of Central Tax, challenged the order dated 18 October 2024 issued by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Central Tax and the Department of Revenue’s instruction dated 10 April 2023, which treated the Karnataka High Court’s judgment in C.R. Madhava Murthy v. Union of India as applicable only to the parties in that case.

He sought pay stepping-up at par with his junior, with consequential benefits including pensionary benefits.

The Tribunal noted that the issues had been considered in its decision in R.S. Venkataram v. Union of India, OA No. 69/2023 and connected matters, dated 20 December 2024.

Whether the applicant was entitled to have his pay stepped up at par with his junior, with consequential benefits, in light of C.R. Madhava Murthy and the Tribunal’s decision in R.S. Venkataram.

Whether the challenged order and the instruction treating the High Court’s judgment as confined to the parties before it could stand in view of the prior Tribunal decision.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides the basis for an application before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal relied on the Karnataka High Court’s decision in C.R. Madhava Murthy v. Union of India, upheld by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2087–2088 of 2022, and the dismissal of the review petitions in that matter.

It also relied on its own decision in R.S. Venkataram, which granted pay-parity relief in comparable ACP/MACP cases, while recording the respondents’ position that the relevant ACP/MACP provisions made financial upgradation personal to the employee and that the issue remained subject to pending SLPs.

The governing approach in this application was consistency with the Tribunal’s prior decision on the same issue.

The Tribunal treated the applicant’s claim as covered by its reasoning and decision in R.S. Venkataram.

That decision had considered the Supreme Court’s affirmation of C.R. Madhava Murthy, the respondents’ arguments concerning the ACP/MACP provisions, and the pending SLPs; it nevertheless allowed comparable applications and directed pay stepping-up at par with the respective juniors.

Finding no reason to take a different view, the Tribunal applied the principle of uniformity and consistency in judicial decisions.

The adopted relief included stepping up pay at par with the respective junior, payment of arrears up to retirement, and consequential benefits.

No order as to costs was made.