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

The applicant, a retired Superintendent of Central Tax, 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 be treated as personam—was invalid under Article 141. She also sought pay stepping-up at par with her junior, with consequential pensionary benefits.

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

Whether the applicant was entitled to pay stepping-up at par with her junior, with consequential benefits, in light of the principles applied in C.R. Madhava Murthy and the Tribunal’s decision in R.S. Venkataram.

Whether the Department of Revenue’s instruction treating the High Court judgment as applicable only in personam could be challenged in the applicant’s case.

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

The Tribunal relied on the Karnataka High Court’s judgment in C.R. Madhava Murthy v. Union of India, W.P. Nos. 33038–33039/2016, dated 31 July 2021, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. C.R. Madhava Murthy, (2022) 6 SCC 183, and whose review was dismissed on 21 February 2023.

It also applied its decision in R.S. Venkataram, which had directed pay stepping-up for the applicants before it, subject to the outcome of specified pending SLPs.

The Tribunal considered the applicant’s claim governed by its earlier decision in R.S. Venkataram, which had examined the effect of C.R. Madhava Murthy and the respondents’ argument that the earlier judgment was confined to its parties.

Finding no reason to take a different view, the Tribunal applied the principle of uniformity and consistency and held that the applicant was entitled to similar relief.

It did not undertake a separate, detailed examination of the challenged instruction in this order.

The earlier order directed pay stepping-up at par with the respective junior, arrears up to retirement, and consequential benefits, and made that relief subject to the decisions in the specified pending SLPs.