Senior employees are entitled to stepping up of pay to match juniors notwithstanding procedural pay fixation options.

The applicant, enrolled as a Constable in the Delhi Police on April 1, 1986, was promoted to Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) in November 2016.

Upon implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) and his promotion, his basic pay was fixed at ₹46,200. However, he discovered that several juniors appointed after him (specifically in May and June 1986) were drawing a higher basic pay of ₹47,600.

The respondents rejected the applicant's request for "stepping up" of pay on February 10, 2017, and March 22, 2017.

The respondents justified the disparity by stating that the juniors had exercised an option under FR 22(I)(a)(1) to fix their pay from the date of their next annual increment following their ACP upgradation, whereas the applicant’s pay was fixed straightaway upon his 1st ACP in 1999, leading to a shifted increment date and lower pay under the 6th and 7th CPC.

1. Whether a senior employee is entitled to the stepping up of pay at par with juniors when a pay anomaly arises due to the technical application of pay fixation rules and exercise of options under FR 22(I)(a)(1).

2. Whether the denial of pay parity in such circumstances violates the constitutional mandate of equality under Articles 14 and 16.

The Tribunal applied the settled legal principle that a senior employee cannot be paid a lesser salary than their junior, as established by the Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh Grewal & Anr. v. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 94.

Fundamental Rule (FR) 22(I)(a)(1) regarding pay fixation and FR 27, which allows for the removal of anomalies.

The DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 26.10.2018, which provides consolidated guidelines for stepping up of pay to rectify anomalies arising from the application of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, provided that the senior and junior belong to the same cadre and the posts are identical.

The Tribunal observed that the facts were undisputed: the applicant is senior to the cited officials and draws lower pay.

The Tribunal reasoned that FR 22(I)(a)(1) is a computational procedure and cannot be interpreted to authorize or perpetuate a substantive inequality that disturbs hierarchical parity.

It noted that the DoP&T guidelines of 2018 list specific, exhaustive exceptions where stepping up is disallowed (such as EOL or refusal of promotion), and a disparity arising solely from the exercise of a fixation option is not among them.

The Tribunal found that the applicant met all conditions for stepping up: identical cadre, identical pay levels, and an anomaly resulting directly from the application of pay fixation rules.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that maintaining the anomaly would be arbitrary and violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

It held that the applicant is entitled to the stepping up of his pay to match his immediate junior from the date the junior began drawing the higher pay.

The respondents were directed to implement this pay fixation and grant all consequential benefits, including arrears (without interest), within eight weeks.