Senior employees are entitled to pay stepping-up vis-à-vis juniors under the established ACP/MACP parity precedent.

The applicant, the wife and legal representative of a retired Superintendent of Central Tax, challenged the order dated 17 October 2024 refusing to step up her late husband’s pay to that of his junior.

She also challenged the Department of Revenue’s order dated 10 April 2023 directing that the Karnataka High Court’s judgment in C.R. Madhava Murthy v. Union of India be treated as a judgment in personam.

She sought pay parity with the junior, together with consequential and 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 have her late husband’s pay stepped up to that of his junior, with consequential benefits.

Whether the impugned orders should be set aside in light of the Tribunal’s decision in R.S. Venkataram and the judgments in C.R. Madhava Murthy.

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

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 affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2087–2088 of 2022 and followed by dismissal of the review petitions.

It also applied its own decision in R.S. Venkataram, which had directed pay stepping-up in comparable cases, while making that relief subject to the pending SLPs identified in that decision.

The Tribunal treated consistency in judicial decisions as a reason to follow that ruling in the present case.

The Tribunal considered the applicant’s claim to be materially covered by its decision in R.S. Venkataram, which had examined the effect of the C.R. Madhava Murthy judgments on pay-parity claims under the ACP/MACP schemes.

Finding no reason to take a different view, it applied the same approach to the applicant’s case on grounds of uniformity and consistency.

No order was made as to costs.