Similarly placed employees are entitled to pay stepping-up parity with juniors receiving ACP/MACP benefits.

The applicant, a retired Superintendent of Central Tax, challenged the order dated 18 October 2024 denying his request for pay stepping-up with reference to his junior.

He also sought a declaration that the Department of Revenue’s order dated 10 April 2023—which treated the Karnataka High Court’s decision in C.R. Madhava Murthy v. Union of India, W.P. Nos. 33038–33039/2016, as confined to the parties in that case—was unlawful. He claimed consequential pensionary benefits.

The Tribunal noted that the issue had been considered in R.S. Venkataram v. Union of India, OA No. 69/2023 and connected matters, decided on 20 December 2024, which relied on the High Court’s decision in Madhava Murthy, affirmed by the Supreme Court, and on the dismissal of the review petitions.

Whether the applicant was entitled to have his pay stepped up to the level of his junior, with consequential benefits, in light of the Tribunal’s decision in R.S. Venkataram and the precedent in Madhava Murthy.

Whether the respondents’ refusal to extend that relief, including their treatment of Madhava Murthy as a decision confined to the parties in that case, could stand.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the basis for the applicant’s Original Application.

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, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2087–2088 of 2022, and on the subsequent dismissal of the review petitions.

It also applied its own decision in R.S. Venkataram, which directed pay stepping-up in comparable cases, while making that relief subject to the pending SLPs identified in that decision.

The judgment does not independently interpret the ACP/MACP provisions; it adopts the approach in R.S. Venkataram.

The Tribunal considered the issue already addressed in R.S. Venkataram, where it had examined the respondents’ argument that Madhava Murthy was confined to its parties and that the ACP/MACP conditions barred parity with a junior who received a financial upgradation.

Finding no reason to depart from that decision, the Tribunal applied its approach to the applicant, relying on consistency and uniformity in judicial decisions.

It did not separately assess the applicant’s individual pay history or make an independent finding on the operation of the ACP/MACP provisions.

That order directed pay stepping-up with consequential benefits and stated that its relief was subject to the outcome of the SLPs listed in it.

No order was made as to costs.