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

The applicant, a retired Superintendent of Central Tax, challenged the third respondent’s order dated 18 October 2024 and sought, among other reliefs, pay stepping-up to match his junior, with consequential pensionary benefits.

He also sought a declaration that the Union’s instruction dated 10 April 2023—stating that the Karnataka High Court’s decision in C.R. Madhava Murthy v. Union of India applied only to the parties in that case—was unlawful.

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.

In that decision, the Tribunal had relied on the Karnataka High Court’s judgment in C.R. Madhava Murthy, upheld by the Supreme Court, and directed pay stepping-up for the applicants before it.

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

2. Whether the Tribunal should grant the applicant similar relief notwithstanding the respondents’ position that C.R. Madhava Murthy was confined to the parties in that case.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides the basis for an aggrieved person to seek relief before the Tribunal.

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 Union of India v. C.R. Madhava Murthy, Civil Appeal Nos. 2087–2088 of 2022, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 183; the review petitions were dismissed on 21 February 2023.

It also applied its own decision in R.S. Venkataram, which granted pay-parity relief while noting the respondents’ reliance on the ACP/MACP provisions that financial upgradation is personal to the employee and does not, by itself, entitle a senior to parity.

The Tribunal treated consistency with its prior decision as the governing basis for deciding this application.

The Tribunal found no reason to depart from its decision in R.S. Venkataram, which had considered the respondents’ argument that the relief in C.R. Madhava Murthy was confined to that case and had nonetheless granted similar relief to the applicants there.

Because it considered the present applicant entitled to similar relief, and regarded uniformity and consistency as requiring the same approach, it disposed of the application on the terms of that earlier order.

The Tribunal did not separately elaborate on the applicant’s constitutional challenges to the impugned orders.

That earlier order directed the respondents to step up the applicants’ pay to that of their respective juniors, pay arrears up to retirement, and provide consequential benefits; it also stated that its directions were subject to the outcomes of the pending SLPs identified in that order.

No order was made as to costs.