Senior employees are entitled to pay parity with juniors following the merger of posts into higher scales.

The applicant joined as a Direct Section Officer (SO) in 1998

Following a temporary reversion to the post of Auditor in 2002 due to exam failure, he was promoted back to SO on 19.02.2004 in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10,500

Under the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendations (effective 01.01.2006), the posts of SO and Assistant Audit/Accounts Officer (AAO) were merged into a revised pay scale of Rs. 7500-12,000 (PB-2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4800)

A junior employee, Shri Raghesh Kumar Nambiar, was promoted to AAO on 02.01.2006 and granted a basic pay of Rs. 13,950 + GP 4800

Initially, Respondent No. 3 granted the applicant stepping up of pay to match the junior. However, via an impugned order dated 07.06.2021, the respondents withdrew the stepping up and ordered recovery of Rs. 83,954, claiming the junior had drawn higher pay in the lower grade due to advance increments, thereby creating an exception to the stepping-up rule under FR-22

1. Whether the applicant, as a senior Section Officer, is entitled to pay parity (Basic Pay of Rs. 13,950 + GP 4800) with his junior effective 01.01.2006 due to the merger of SO/AAO posts under the 6th CPC

2. Whether the recovery of alleged excess payments made to the applicant is legally sustainable

The Tribunal applied the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, specifically Note 10, which mandates stepping up a senior’s pay to match a junior’s if the junior is promoted on or after 01.01.2006 and draws higher pay

It further relied on the 6th CPC Report (Chapter 7.56.9) regarding the merger of SO and AAO cadres into the Rs. 7500-12,000 scale

The Tribunal followed the precedent set by the Kerala High Court in OP (CAT) No. 151/2016, which held that for merged posts, the existing pay for fitment must be taken as the minimum of the higher merged scale (Rs. 7500)

Regarding recovery, the court applied the principles from State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), which prohibits recovery from employees when excess payment was made for over five years or would be iniquitous

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' argument that the pay difference was an "allowable anomaly" due to the junior's advance increments in a lower grade

The Tribunal reasoned that the core issue was the merger of cadres effective 01.01.2006

Since the SO post was merged into the Rs. 7500-12,000 scale, any person holding that post on 01.01.2006 was entitled to have their pay fixed against the minimum of that scale (Rs. 7500)

By applying the fitment factor of 1.86 to the minimum of the merged scale (7500 x 1.86), the resulting basic pay is Rs. 13,950

The respondents erred by fixing the applicant's pay based on his old, lower pre-merged scale (Rs. 6900 x 1.86 = Rs. 12,840), while correctly applying the merged scale logic to the junior

This resulted in unfair discrimination against the senior applicant.

The Tribunal noted that the attempt to recover payments starting from 2006 in 2021 was a direct violation of the Rafiq Masih guidelines

It held that the applicant is entitled to a revised basic pay of Rs. 13,950 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4800 effective 01.01.2006

The respondents were directed to restore the applicant’s pay fixation, cease all recovery actions, and refund any amounts already recovered with interest at the applicable GPF rate

The exercise must be completed within eight weeks