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

The applicant, a retired Superintendent of Central Tax, sought pay stepping-up to the level of his junior, Shri P. Madhusudan Babu, in three stages commencing on 17 January 2004, 17 January 2008, and 17 January 2018, together with consequential pensionary benefits.

He challenged the Principal Chief Commissioner’s order dated 18 October 2024 and sought to invalidate the Department of Revenue’s order dated 10 April 2023, which had directed that the Karnataka High Court’s judgment in C.R. Madhava Murthy v. Union of India be treated as in personam.

The respondents opposed extending that judgment to other employees, relying on provisions in the ACP and MACP schemes.

The Tribunal considered its earlier decision in R.S. Venkataram v. Union of India, OA No. 69/2023 and connected matters, dated 20 December 2024.

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

2. Whether the impugned orders could stand, given the applicant’s claim that they unlawfully restricted the effect of the Madhava Murthy judgment.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the basis for an aggrieved person to apply to the Tribunal for redress.

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 upheld by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2087–2088 of 2022, reported at (2022) 6 SCC 183, with review petitions dismissed on 21 February 2023.

It also applied its own decision in R.S. Venkataram, which had allowed comparable claims for pay stepping-up and consequential benefits, while making its relief subject to the outcome of specified pending SLPs.

The Tribunal’s stated principle was that materially similar cases should be treated consistently.

The Tribunal treated the issue as already addressed in R.S. Venkataram, where it had considered the Madhava Murthy judgments and the respondents’ reliance on the ACP/MACP provisions.

Finding no reason to distinguish the applicant’s case, it relied on uniformity and consistency in judicial decisions and concluded that the applicant was entitled to similar relief.

It did not separately examine the applicant’s three requested effective dates in its reasoning.

It held the applicant entitled to similar relief, including pay stepping-up to the level of his junior and consequential benefits, in accordance with that prior order.

No order was made as to costs.