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

The applicant, a retired Superintendent of Central Tax, sought to quash the Principal Chief Commissioner’s order dated 18 October 2024 and the Department of Revenue’s instruction dated 10 April 2023, which treated the Karnataka High Court’s decision in C.R. Madhava Murthy v. Union of India as confined to the parties in that case. He sought pay-step-up in the PB-2 pay band with Grade Pay of ₹4,800 and ₹5,400, at par with his junior, together with consequential and pensionary benefits.

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

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

Whether the respondents’ treatment of the High Court’s decision as confined to the parties in that case warranted setting aside the impugned order and instruction.

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

The Tribunal relied on the Karnataka High Court’s decision in C.R. Madhava Murthy v. Union of India, W.P. Nos. 33038–33039/2016, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2087–2088 of 2022, reported at (2022) 6 SCC 183, with review petitions subsequently dismissed.

It also applied its own decision in R.S. Venkataram, which directed pay-step-up at par with the respective juniors and consequential benefits, while noting that the order in that case was subject to the specified pending SLPs.

The Tribunal invoked consistency in judicial decision-making as the basis for following that ruling.

The Tribunal treated the applicant’s claim as governed by its decision in R.S. Venkataram, which had considered the effect of C.R. Madhava Murthy, including the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the High Court’s decision.

Finding no material basis to distinguish the applicant’s claim or to take a different view, the Tribunal applied the principle of uniformity and consistency and held that he was entitled to similar relief.

Under that order, the respondents were directed to step up the applicants’ pay at par with their respective juniors, pay arrears up to retirement, and grant consequential benefits; any amount already recovered was to be refunded.

There was no order as to costs.