Similarly placed employees are entitled to pay parity with juniors under the Madhava Murthy precedent.

The applicant, a retired Superintendent of Central Tax, challenged the order dated 16 October 2024 issued by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Central Tax and sought stepping up of his pay at par with his junior, with consequential pensionary benefits.

He also sought a declaration that the Department of Revenue’s order dated 10 April 2023, treating the Karnataka High Court’s judgment in C.R. Madhava Murthy v. Union of India as confined to the parties in that case, was unlawful.

The Tribunal considered its earlier decision in R.S. Venkataram v. Union of India, OA No. 69/2023 and connected matters, which had addressed similar claims by reference to the High Court and Supreme Court decisions in C.R. Madhava Murthy.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to have his pay stepped up at par with his junior, with consequential benefits, in light of the decisions in C.R. Madhava Murthy and R.S. Venkataram.

2. Whether the impugned order dated 16 October 2024 could stand in view of the Tribunal’s determination of the same issue in R.S. Venkataram.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the basis for an application to the Tribunal for redress of a service grievance.

The Tribunal relied on the Karnataka High Court’s decision in C.R. Madhava Murthy v. Union of India, W.P. Nos. 33038–33039/2016, dated 31 July 2021, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. C.R. Madhava Murthy, (2022) 6 SCC 183; the Supreme Court also dismissed the review petitions in that matter.

It followed its decision in R.S. Venkataram, which directed pay stepping-up for the applicants there, while making that relief subject to the outcomes of specified pending SLPs.

The Tribunal also relied on the principle of consistency in judicial decision-making.

The Tribunal treated the applicant’s claim as materially similar to the claims decided in R.S. Venkataram.

That earlier decision had considered the effect of the High Court and Supreme Court rulings in C.R. Madhava Murthy and had granted comparable pay-stepping-up relief.

Finding no reason to take a different view, the Tribunal applied the principle of consistency and held that the applicant was entitled to similar relief.

It held that the applicant was entitled to similar relief; the directions in the earlier decision—including pay stepping-up and consequential benefits—were subject to the qualifications stated there, including the pending SLPs.

There was no order as to costs.