Senior general-category employees are entitled to pay stepping-up after reserved-category juniors receive accelerated promotion.

The respondent-plaintiff, a General Category employee, joined the cadre of Math Masters on 8 December 1969 and was senior in the relevant seniority lists to Sh. Nathu Ram, a reserved-category employee who joined the cadre on regular basis on 13 February 1971.

Nathu Ram was promoted as Head Master on 18/25 March 1981 under the Accelerated Promotion Scheme, while the plaintiff was promoted as Head Master only on 23 February 1999.

The plaintiff claimed notional pay fixation from the date of Nathu Ram’s promotion and actual stepped-up pay and consequential arrears from the date of his own promotion, relying on Government instructions dated 27 November 2006, 5 March 2009 and 18 December 2013, issued pursuant to the law relating to removal of pay disparity caused by accelerated promotion of reserved-category employees.

The trial Court decreed the suit, granting notional pay fixation from 18/25 March 1981, actual stepped-up pay from 23 February 1999, and interest at 6% per annum.

The First Appellate Court affirmed the decree, holding that the plaintiff’s claim was recurring and that the 18 December 2013 instructions had not been shown to have been withdrawn.

Whether the plaintiff, being senior to Nathu Ram but promoted later because Nathu Ram received accelerated promotion as a reserved-category employee, was entitled to notional pay fixation and subsequent stepping-up of pay under the applicable Government instructions?

Whether the Government instructions dated 27 November 2006, 5 March 2009 and 18 December 2013 applied to the plaintiff’s claim, including notwithstanding the delay in asserting the claim?

Whether the plaintiff’s suit, instituted in 2018 after his retirement in 2004, was barred by limitation, or whether the continuing reduction in pay and pension constituted a recurring cause of action?

Whether the concurrent findings of the Courts below disclosed any substantial question of law warranting interference in second appeal?

The Court applied the principle that where a senior General Category employee is later promoted than a junior reserved-category employee solely because of accelerated promotion, the senior may be entitled to stepping-up of pay, without disturbing the junior’s promotion or seniority, under the applicable Government policy.

It relied on Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab, and State of Haryana v. O.P. Gupta, for the principles governing restoration of pay parity and notional promotion, including the distinction between notional fixation and actual monetary benefits.

The Government circular dated 27 November 2006 and instructions dated 5 March 2009 contemplated notional fixation from the deemed date and actual benefits from the date of actual promotion.

The instructions dated 18 December 2013 extended the benefit of stepping-up to General Category employees without a cut-off date.

On limitation, the Court applied Union of India v. Tarsem Singh and Asger Ibrahim Amin v. LIC, holding that pay and pension claims involving a continuing wrong may be entertained despite delay where third-party rights are not affected, although arrears are ordinarily restricted to three years.

The Court further relied on Union of India v. SGT Girish Kumar, holding that a State policy decision granting arrears from a specified date cannot subsequently be defeated by restricting the accrued benefit on grounds of delay.

The Court found that the seniority lists placed the plaintiff above Nathu Ram and that the State had not produced documentary evidence showing that those lists had been revised or that Nathu Ram’s earlier appointment altered the plaintiff’s established seniority position.

Nathu Ram’s earlier promotion was attributable to the Accelerated Promotion Scheme, and once the plaintiff subsequently reached the post of Head Master, the applicable instructions entitled him to restoration of the corresponding pay position through notional fixation and stepping-up.

The relief did not annul Nathu Ram’s promotion, alter his seniority, or affect any third-party rights; it concerned only pay fixation and consequential monetary benefits.

The State failed to prove withdrawal of the 18 December 2013 instructions, and its reliance on earlier cut-off-date instructions was rejected because the later policy expressly removed the cut-off restriction.

The continuing shortfall in pay and pension constituted a recurring wrong, and the State, having itself prescribed the dates from which benefits were payable, could not defeat the plaintiff’s accrued entitlement solely on the ground of delay.

Accordingly, the concurrent factual findings were neither perverse nor legally erroneous and raised no substantial question of law.

It held that the plaintiff was entitled to notional pay refixation with effect from 18/25 March 1981, corresponding to Nathu Ram’s accelerated promotion, and to actual stepped-up pay and consequential benefits with effect from 23 February 1999, the date of the plaintiff’s own promotion.

The State was directed to release the consequential arrears, together with interest as awarded by the trial Court, within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the order.