Seniority alone does not entitle an employee to pay-parity or stepping up of pay.

The applicant sought appointment as JIO-II (M.T.) following a 1988 advertisement. Although higher in merit, he was bypassed, while juniors were appointed in 1989.

He filed a Writ Petition in 1994, during which the respondents issued an appointment letter on 10.11.1994, leading the High Court of Calcutta to dispose of the petition as infructuous.

The applicant’s seniority was eventually refixed in 2005 at serial no. 150 (above his junior Mr. Subroto Banerjee), and he was promoted to JIO-I (M.T.) on 21.11.2005.

In 2016, the applicant filed representations seeking notional pay fixation at par with juniors (like Sh. Subroto Banerjee) from 1989 and the grant of a 2nd Financial Upgradation (MACP) from October 2009.

The respondents rejected these claims, citing that pay is only admissible from the date of joining and that the junior (Sh. Avtar Singh) drew higher pay due to a longer actual length of service.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to stepping up of pay at par with his juniors on a notional basis from 1989

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the 2nd MACP financial upgradation based on a comparison with "similarly placed" employees earlier than his actual completion of service

The Tribunal applied Fundamental Rule 22(I)(a)(1) (formerly FR-22C), which regulates pay fixation upon promotion.

Rule 7, Note 10 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, which mandates that for stepping up of pay, the senior must have been drawing equal or more pay than the junior in the lower post, and the anomaly must result directly from the application of FR-22.

DoP&T OM dated 26.10.2018, which clarifies that stepping up is not admissible if a senior joins a post later than a junior for any reason or if the junior draws more pay due to a longer length of service.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant failed to provide a comparative pay chart to prove a specific pay anomaly.

It observed that Sh. Subroto Banerjee reached the 20-year service milestone for MACP in 2014 because he joined in 1989, whereas the applicant joined only in 1994.

The Tribunal reasoned that seniority does not automatically guarantee pay parity; career progression depends on actual service rendered, penalties, or special pay.

Applying the DoP&T guidelines, the Tribunal found that since the applicant joined the service later than his batchmates (regardless of the cause of delay), he did not meet the criteria for stepping up of pay.

It held that MACP benefits are personal to the employee based on their actual length of service and cannot be claimed merely by comparison with "similarly placed" persons.

The applicant is not entitled to stepping up of pay or early MACP benefits because he did not fulfill the statutory conditions under CCS (RP) Rules and FR-22. The respondents' decision to fix pay based on the actual date of joining (as per Clause 8 of the appointment letter) was upheld. No order as to costs was made.