Senior employees are entitled to pay stepping-up parity with juniors in comparable ACP/MACP cases.

The applicant, a retired Superintendent of Central Tax, challenged the order dated 18 October 2024 declining his claim for pay-step-up parity with his junior.

He sought, among other reliefs, a direction to step up his pay in Pay Band-2 with Grade Pays of ₹4,800 and ₹5,400, with consequential pensionary benefits.

He also challenged a Department of Revenue order that treated the Karnataka High Court’s decision in C.R. Madhava Murthy v. Union of India as confined to the parties in that case.

The Tribunal considered its earlier decision in R.S. Venkataram v. Union of India, OA No. 69/2023 and connected matters, which had addressed the same issue by reference to Madhava Murthy.

Whether the applicant was entitled to pay-step-up parity with his junior, with consequential benefits, in light of the Tribunal’s decision in R.S. Venkataram and the precedent in C.R. Madhava Murthy.

Whether the Tribunal should grant relief consistent with its earlier decision on the same issue.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the basis for an aggrieved person to apply to the Tribunal for redressal of service-related grievances.

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

It also applied its own decision in R.S. Venkataram, which directed pay-step-up parity with the respective juniors and consequential arrears and benefits, while making that relief subject to the outcomes of specified pending special leave petitions.

The Tribunal invoked consistency and uniformity in judicial decisions as grounds for following its earlier ruling.

The Tribunal treated the applicant’s claim as governed by the same issue previously considered in R.S. Venkataram, where it had examined Madhava Murthy and the respondents’ argument that the relief there was confined to the parties.

Finding no reason to take a different view, the Tribunal applied its earlier decision to the applicant’s claim.

It did not separately undertake a detailed analysis of the applicant’s constitutional challenge or the merits of the impugned order.

That order directed pay-step-up parity with the respective junior, arrears up to retirement and consequential benefits, subject to the specified pending SLPs.

No order as to costs was made.