Senior employees are entitled to stepping up of pay to parity with juniors drawing higher pay within the same cadre.

The applicants are retired Senior Section Engineers (SSE/P. Way) from the Civil Engineering Department of the North East Frontier Railway

They approached the Tribunal alleging a pay anomaly wherein a junior colleague, Shri Gautam Basu, was drawing a higher salary despite being promoted to the same post later than the applicants

The applicants' formal representations for "stepping up" their pay to match Shri Basu's were rejected by the Divisional Railway Manager, Katihar, via a communication dated May 18, 2015

The respondents justified the disparity by claiming Shri Basu was initially appointed in a different seniority unit and that his higher pay resulted from a specific pay fixation option exercised upon his promotion

However, the 2009 provisional seniority list confirmed that all parties were part of the same cadre and that the applicants were senior to Shri Basu

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the "stepping up" of their pay to parity with their junior, Shri Gautam Basu, under the extant Railway Board rules

2. Whether the respondents' claims regarding the junior's original seniority unit and pay fixation options are sufficient to deny the claim for pay parity

Master Circular No. 56 of the Railway Board, specifically Paragraph 3.1, which governs the removal of pay anomalies arising from the application of pay fixation options upon promotion.

Fundamental Rule (FR) 27, which empowers the administration to refix pay to resolve such anomalies

Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2016

The Tribunal found that the applicants and Shri Basu were indisputably part of the same cadre of SSE/P. Way, as evidenced by the 2009 seniority list where the applicants were ranked higher (Serial Nos. 5, 6, 8, and 17) than Shri Basu (Serial No. 21)

Consequently, the respondents' argument that the anomaly was justified because Shri Basu transferred from a different seniority unit was dismissed, as they were all currently borne on the same seniority list

Regarding the respondents' claim that the disparity arose from a pay fixation option exercised by the junior, the Tribunal observed that the respondents failed to produce any documentary evidence, such as the actual option form, to substantiate this

Applying Master Circular No. 56, the Tribunal reasoned that since the seniors did not refuse any promotion and the conditions for parity were met, the senior employees could not be paid less than their junior

It held that the applicants' pay as SSE/P. Way must be stepped up to match that of their junior, Shri Gautam Basu

The competent respondent authority was directed to refix the applicants' pay within two months from the date of receipt of the order, following a verification of the specific pay details

No order as to costs was made