Senior employees are entitled to pay stepping-up parity when juniors receive higher ACP/MACP benefits.

The applicant, a retired Superintendent of Central Tax, challenged the order dated 16 October 2024 refusing to step up his pay to that of his junior.

He also sought a declaration that the Department of Revenue’s order dated 10 April 2023—which treated the Karnataka High Court’s judgment in C.R. Madhava Murthy v. Union of India, W.P. Nos. 33038–33039/2016, as confined to the parties—was invalid.

He sought consequential arrears and pension benefits.

The respondents opposed the application; the Tribunal considered its earlier decision in R.S. Venkataram v. Union of India, O.A. No. 69/2023 and connected matters, dated 20 December 2024.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to have his pay stepped up to that of his junior, with consequential benefits, in light of the decisions in C.R. Madhava Murthy and R.S. Venkataram.

2. Whether the impugned order dated 16 October 2024 should be set aside and the applicant granted the relief sought.

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, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2087–2088 of 2022, Union of India v. C.R. Madhava Murthy, (2022) 6 SCC 183; the Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the review petitions.

It also applied its own decision in R.S. Venkataram, which treated the Madhava Murthy ruling as supporting pay stepping-up relief in materially similar cases, while recording that the relief remained subject to the outcome of specified pending special leave petitions.

The prior decision discussed the ACP and MACP scheme provisions concerning the personal nature of financial upgradations and the relevance of Fundamental Rule 22.

The Tribunal considered the issue already addressed in R.S. Venkataram, which had examined the Madhava Murthy judgments and the respondents’ contention that those judgments were confined to their parties because the ACP/MACP provisions remained in force.

Finding the applicant’s claim entitled to similar treatment, the Tribunal relied on consistency and uniformity in judicial decision-making and saw no reason to depart from its earlier ruling.

It therefore disposed of the application in the same terms as that decision.

Under the terms of that earlier decision, the respondents were directed to step up the applicants’ pay to that of their respective juniors and pay arrears up to retirement with consequential benefits; the direction was stated to be subject to the specified pending SLPs.

No order as to costs was made.