Pay stepping up is inadmissible against a senior appointed earlier in the lower post.

The petitioner, a Foreman (Welder) at the Naval Ship Repair Yard, filed O.A. No. 569/2018 alleging that his juniors, specifically M. Aravindakshan and P.Y. Reji, were drawing higher pay than him

The Tribunal allowed the O.A., directing the respondents to step up the petitioner's pay to match his immediate junior from the date the anomaly arose

The petitioner subsequently filed this Contempt Petition, asserting that the respondents failed to step up his pay to the level of M. Aravindakshan

The respondents contended that Aravindakshan was not a junior but a senior who joined the service three years prior to the petitioner

The matter was also subject to a judgment by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in OP (CAT) No. 114 of 2025, which reviewed the Tribunal's original order

1. Whether the petitioner is legally entitled to the stepping up of pay to match the salary of M. Aravindakshan

2. Whether the respondents have substantially complied with the Tribunal's directions regarding pay fixation and arrears

The Tribunal applied the principles laid down in the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP) Office Memorandum (OM) dated 04.11.1993, which provides that a senior employee cannot claim pay parity in a higher post if they were appointed to the lower post later than the junior and received lesser pay at that initial stage

It further relied on the interpretation of Clause 3(e) of the OM dated 26.10.2018, as clarified by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, which restricts stepping up when the senior-junior relationship or entry-level pay conditions are not satisfied

The Tribunal analyzed the comparative service history of the petitioner and M. Aravindakshan. Records revealed that Aravindakshan joined service on 24.10.1983, whereas the petitioner joined on 28.10.1986

Aravindakshan reached the HS II category in 1989, two years before the petitioner reached the same in 1991

Applying the DoP OM dated 04.11.1993, the Tribunal determined that because Aravindakshan was senior in entry and pay at the lower post level, the petitioner’s claim for parity with him was unsustainable

However, regarding the other individual, P.Y. Reji, the petitioner was indeed senior as per the High Court's findings

Therefore, the Tribunal found that while parity with Aravindakshan was rightly denied, the petitioner remained entitled to the benefits flowing from seniority over Reji

It directed the respondents to pay the balance amount of arrears due (based on the correct seniority fixations) within three weeks and provide the petitioner with a copy of the pay fixation

The Contempt Petition was closed, granting the petitioner liberty to revive it should a dispute arise regarding the quantum of payment