Seniority and promotion determined by earlier suitability, not initial appointment date.

The applicant, Raj Kumar, was initially appointed as a Lab Attendant on July 26, 1976

respondent No.4, Shri Vishambher Pandey, was appointed on July 23, 1976

Both were promoted to Machine Operator on January 31, 1984

The respondent No.4 was promoted to Technician Grade-VI on February 1, 1991, after being found suitable by an assessment committee

the applicant failed assessments in 1991, 1992, and 2000, eventually being promoted to Technician Grade-VI on February 1, 1993

The applicant and respondent No.4 were subsequently promoted as Technical Officer Gr.-A in the grade pay of Rs. 4200/- via an order dated February 2, 2010

Their pay was further revised to a grade pay of Rs. 4600/- via an order dated March 25, 2011

On March 28, 2011, the applicant's pay was fixed in the revised pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs. 4600/- effective February 1, 2008, and respondent No.4's pay was fixed with the same benefits effective April 1, 2008

On May 23, 2011, respondent No.3 issued an order for re-fixation of assessment in favor of respondent No.4

The applicant made a representation on June 3, 2011, claiming seniority and seeking similar re-fixation, but no action was taken

The applicant sought to quash the order dated May 23, 2011, concerning respondent No.4 or, alternatively, to be given the benefit of re-fixation of assessment at par with respondent No.4 in terms of sub-Rule 4 of Rule 3 for stepping up pay

1. Whether the order dated May 23, 2011, concerning the re-fixation of assessment in favour of respondent No.4 should be quashed

2. Alternatively, whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of re-fixation of assessment at par with respondent No.4 in terms of sub-Rule 4 of Rule 3 for stepping up of pay to remove anomalies

3. Whether the respondents should be directed to re-fix the applicant's pay in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 with effect from January 1, 2007, with consequential benefits, along with respondent No.4

The court primarily considered the Central Pulp and Paper Research Institute’s Recruitment and Promotion Scheme and the recommendations of the anomaly committee regarding promotion assessments and pay fixation

The core legal principle applied was that promotions and pay fixations are to be made according to applicable rules and recommendations, and a higher pay or benefit to an employee due to earlier eligibility and continuous service in a relevant scale does not constitute an anomaly warranting stepping up of pay for another employee

The court analyzed the promotion history of both the applicant and respondent No.4, noting that while their initial appointments were close in time, respondent No.4 was promoted earlier to the pay scale of Rs. 1320-2040/1350-2200 from February 1, 1991, because he was found suitable earlier

The applicant, however, was promoted to that scale later from February 1, 1993, due to his failure in earlier assessments

The court found that subsequent promotions and pay fixations were made according to the rules and recommendations of the anomaly committee

Specifically, the anomaly committee’s recommendations allowed for counting services in different pay scales together for assessment promotion from April 1, 1996, and for re-consideration if an employee was not found suitable

The court concluded that the higher pay or benefit given to respondent No.4 resulted from his earlier eligibility and continuous service in the relevant scale, not from any anomaly

Therefore, the applicant could not claim stepping up of pay or re-fixation at par with respondent No.4

It was held that the applicant was not entitled to stepping up of pay or re-fixation at par with respondent No.4 because respondent No.4's higher pay or benefit was due to his earlier eligibility and continuous service in the relevant scale, not a remediable anomaly

No order was made as to costs