Senior pay must be stepped up at par with junior drawing higher pay under MACP.

The applicant, a retired Superintendent of Central Excise, joined as a UDC in 1976 and retired on 31.12.2011

Post-retirement, he discovered that his immediate junior, Smt. Tripta Sharma, was drawing higher pay and pension due to a pay disparity of Rs. 2,260 per month

Tripta Sharma’s pay had been "stepped up" at par with her junior, Shri R.K. Malhotra, following a 2013 Tribunal order in OA No. 1318/CH/2013

Shri Malhotra, a direct recruit, had received financial upgradations under the ACP and MACP Schemes, which caused the initial anomaly

The applicant’s representations for stepping up his pay were rejected by the respondents via orders dated 22.12.2016 and 02.08.2018

The respondents contended that according to paragraphs 10 and 11 of the DoPT O.M. dated 19.05.2009, stepping up of pay is not permissible when the disparity arises from pay fixation under the MACP Scheme

Whether the applicant is legally entitled to the stepping up of his pay at par with his junior, Smt. Tripta Sharma, when the disparity originated from MACP/ACP financial upgradations granted to a junior official

The Tribunal applied the principles of pay parity and stepping up under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

It primarily relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Union of India v. Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 2087-2088/2022), which established that if a junior draws higher pay due to upgradation under the ACP/MACP scheme, the senior's pay must be stepped up to remove the anomaly

The Tribunal also considered the MACP Scheme guidelines under DoPT O.M. dated 19.05.2009, specifically the restrictive clauses in paragraphs 10 and 11

The Tribunal observed that the disparity was undisputed: the applicant’s junior (Tripta Sharma) received higher pay because her pay was stepped up to match her junior (R.K. Malhotra), who benefited from MACP/ACP

The respondents' reliance on DoPT guidelines to deny stepping up was overruled by the Tribunal's finding that once a benefit is extended to identically placed employees via court orders, it must be extended to others

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in C.R. Madhava Murthy specifically addressed this scenario, holding that an anomaly where a junior draws more pay due to ACP/MACP requires the senior’s pay to be stepped up

Since the respondents could not provide any contrary citation or legal basis to distinguish the applicant’s case from the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Tribunal held the applicant was entitled to parity

It held that the applicant is entitled to the stepping up of pay at par with Smt. Tripta Sharma.

The respondents were directed to step up the applicant's pay from the date his junior received the benefit, revise his pension, and pay all consequential retiral benefits

However, the recovery of arrears was restricted to a period of three years prior to the filing of the OA

The compliance was ordered within eight weeks