Senior employees are entitled to pay stepping-up parity with juniors under the applicable precedent.

The applicant, a retired Superintendent of Central Tax, challenged the order dated 17 October 2024 rejecting her claim for pay parity with her junior.

She also sought a declaration that the Department of Revenue’s instruction dated 10 April 2023—directing that the Karnataka High Court’s judgment in C.R. Madhava Murthy v. Union of India, W.P. Nos. 33038–33039/2016, be treated as personal to the petitioners—was unlawful.

She claimed stepping up of pay, with consequential pensionary benefits.

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

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to pay stepping-up and consequential benefits on par with her junior, in light of the judgments in C.R. Madhava Murthy and R.S. Venkataram.

2. Whether the Tribunal should follow its decision in R.S. Venkataram and connected matters when deciding the applicant’s claim.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the basis for an aggrieved person to apply to the Tribunal.

The applicant invoked Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in challenging the impugned decision and Article 141 in contesting the instruction concerning the High Court judgment.

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, reported at (2022) 6 SCC 183, and on the dismissal of the review petitions in that matter.

It also applied its own decision in R.S. Venkataram, which directed pay stepping-up with the respective juniors and consequential arrears and benefits, subject to the pending SLPs identified in that decision.

The prior decision considered the ACP and MACP provisions concerning the personal nature of financial upgradations and the principle that such upgradation ordinarily does not confer an additional benefit on a senior merely because a junior receives a higher pay scale.

The Tribunal treated the applicant’s claim as covered by its decision in R.S. Venkataram, which had considered the effect of C.R. Madhava Murthy, the Supreme Court’s affirmance, and the respondents’ argument that the earlier relief was personal and that the ACP/MACP provisions remained operative.

Finding no reason to depart from its prior decision, the Tribunal relied on uniformity and consistency in judicial decisions and held that the applicant was entitled to similar relief.

The Tribunal disposed of the OA in terms of its decision in R.S. Venkataram and connected matters.

No order was made as to costs.