Seniority-based stepping up of pay applies when juniors draw higher pay due to pay fixation options.

The applicant, a retired Personal Assistant, joined as an LDC in 1979 and was regularized as Stenographer Grade ‘D’ in 1982

He was granted the 1st Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefit in 1999

Following the implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC), the applicant discovered that his junior, Shri Jai Bhagwan (Respondent No. 4), was drawing a higher Band Pay of ₹13,860 w.e.f. 01.01.2006, whereas the applicant’s pay was fixed at ₹12,840

The junior had been granted his 1st ACP in July 2005 but had opted for pay fixation from the date of his next increment, i.e., 01.01.2006

The respondents denied the applicant’s request for "stepping up" of pay, arguing that the junior received his ACP before 01.01.2006, which they claimed fell outside the scope of specific Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) Office Memoranda (OMs)

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the "stepping up" of his pay to match that of his junior, Shri Jai Bhagwan, w.e.f. 01.01.2006

2. Whether an anomaly arising from a junior’s exercise of option for pay fixation under Fundamental Rules (FR) constitutes a valid ground for stepping up despite the junior's ACP being granted prior to the revised pay rules’ effective date

Note 10 (and Note 7) under Rule 7 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, which mandates the stepping up of a senior’s pay if a junior promoted on or after 01.01.2006 draws more pay in the revised structure, provided they belong to the same cadre and identical posts

Fundamental Rule 22(I)(a)(1) regarding pay fixation and the various executive instructions for removing anomalies, including DoPT OMs dated 04.11.1993, 31.05.2011, and 25.01.2012

statutory rules override executive clarifications in the form of OMs

The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s seniority over Respondent No. 4 was undisputed

The core of the anomaly lay in the application of FR 22(I)(a)(1), which allowed the junior to opt for pay fixation on 01.01.2006, resulting in a higher Band Pay than the senior

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' defense that the junior's ACP date (July 2005) precluded the applicant from relief, noting that all conditions for stepping up—identical cadre, identical pay scales, and the senior drawing more or equal pay in the pre-revised scale—were satisfied

The court reasoned that since the junior’s pay became higher specifically due to the pay fixation rules applied on 01.01.2006, the senior was legally entitled to parity under Note 7/10 of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008

The respondents were directed to refix the applicant’s pay at par with Shri Jai Bhagwan w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The court further ordered the payment of all consequential benefits, including arrears and revised pensionary benefits, along with simple interest at applicable GPF rates from 01.01.2006 onwards