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

The applicant, a retired Superintendent of Central Tax, sought stepping up of her pay in Pay Band 2 with Grade Pay of ₹4,800 and ₹5,400, on par with her junior, with consequential pensionary benefits.

She challenged the Principal Chief Commissioner’s order dated 17 October 2024 and the Department of Revenue’s communication dated 10 April 2023, which treated the Karnataka High Court’s decision in C.R. Madhava Murthy v. Union of India as confined to the parties in that case.

The Tribunal noted that it had allowed similar claims in OA No. 69/2023 and connected matters on 20 December 2024, relying on the High Court’s judgment, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court had also dismissed the review petitions.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to pay stepping-up and consequential benefits on par with her junior, in light of the Tribunal’s decision in OA No. 69/2023 and connected matters.

2. Whether the respondents’ treatment of the Madhava Murthy judgment as confined to the parties in that case justified denying the applicant similar relief.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the basis for an application seeking relief before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal applied its decision in OA No. 69/2023 and connected matters, which considered the Karnataka High Court’s judgment in C.R. Madhava Murthy v. Union of India (W.P. Nos. 33038–33039/2016, decided 31 July 2021), upheld by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2087–2088 of 2022, (2022) 6 SCC 183, and the subsequent dismissal of the review petitions.

That prior Tribunal decision granted similarly situated applicants pay parity with their respective juniors and consequential benefits, while making the relief subject to the outcome of specified pending special leave petitions.

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution were invoked in the applicant’s challenge, but the present order does not separately analyse those provisions.

The Tribunal treated the applicant’s claim as materially covered by its earlier decision in OA No. 69/2023 and connected matters.

It noted that the earlier decision had considered the respondents’ argument that Madhava Murthy was a judgment in personam and had nevertheless granted relief to similarly situated applicants, subject to the pending SLPs.

Finding no reason to depart from that ruling, the Tribunal applied the principle of consistency and held that the applicant was entitled to similar relief.

It made no order as to costs.