Similarly placed employees are entitled to pay stepping-up vis-à-vis juniors under established precedent.

The applicant, a retired Superintendent of Central Tax, challenged the order dated 16 October 2024 refusing to step up his pay with reference to his junior.

He sought pay parity in Pay Band-2 with Grade Pays of ₹4,800 and ₹5,400, together with consequential and pensionary benefits, and also challenged the Department of Revenue’s direction that the Karnataka High Court’s judgment in C.R. Madhava Murthy v. Union of India be treated as confined to the parties in that case.

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, which had addressed similar claims.

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

Whether the Tribunal should depart from its earlier decision on the ground that C.R. Madhava Murthy was confined to the parties in that case and the relevant ACP/MACP provisions remained in force.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the procedural basis for the applicant’s original application.

The Tribunal relied on the Karnataka High Court’s judgment 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, and whose review petitions were dismissed on 21 February 2023.

It also followed its own decision in R.S. Venkataram, which had allowed comparable pay-parity claims, while noting that the relief there was subject to the outcome of specified pending special leave petitions.

The Tribunal applied the principle that consistency and uniformity in judicial decisions support following a prior decision on materially similar claims.

The Tribunal treated the applicant’s claim as covered by its ruling in R.S. Venkataram, which had considered the respondents’ contention that the Madhava Murthy judgment was confined to its parties and that the ACP/MACP provisions against parity based on a junior’s financial upgradation remained operative.

Finding no reason to take a different view in the applicant’s case, it applied its prior ruling on the basis of consistency and uniformity.

That decision directed the respondents to step up the applicants’ pay with reference to their respective juniors, pay arrears up to retirement, and grant consequential benefits; any recovery already made was to be refunded.

The relief remained subject to the decisions in the pending SLPs identified in that earlier order.

There was no order as to costs.