Senior employees are entitled to pay stepping-up when juniors receive higher ACP/MACP benefits.

The applicant, a retired Superintendent of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, challenged the Principal Chief Commissioner’s order dated 16 October 2024 and sought a declaration that the Ministry of Finance’s order dated 10 April 2023—treating the Karnataka High Court’s decision in C.R. Madhava Murthy v. Union of India as confined to the parties in that case—was unlawful. He also sought stepping up of his pay at the relevant grade pays with reference to his junior, together with consequential and pensionary benefits.

The Tribunal noted its earlier decision in O.A. No. 69/2023 and connected matters, dated 20 December 2024, concerning the same issue.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to pay stepping-up and consequential benefits by relying on the Tribunal’s decision in O.A. No. 69/2023 and connected matters.

2. Whether the impugned order could stand in light of the principles applied in C.R. Madhava Murthy v. Union of India and the Tribunal’s earlier decision.

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 (S-CAT), dated 31 July 2021, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2087–2088 of 2022, reported at (2022) 6 SCC 183; the Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions on 21 February 2023.

It also applied its own decision in O.A. No. 69/2023 and connected matters, which had directed pay stepping-up with reference to the respective juniors and consequential benefits, while making that relief subject to the decisions in specified pending SLPs.

The Tribunal did not separately formulate a new rule on the ACP/MACP provisions; it followed the earlier Tribunal decision for consistency.

The Tribunal treated the applicant’s claim as governed by its decision in O.A. No. 69/2023 and connected matters, which had considered the Madhava Murthy litigation and addressed the respondents’ contention that the relief there was confined to the parties.

Finding the applicant entitled to similar relief and identifying no reason to depart from its earlier ruling, the Tribunal relied on uniformity and consistency in judicial decisions.

The relief remained subject to the pending SLPs identified in the earlier order.

No order was made as to costs.