Similarly situated employees are entitled to pay stepping-up parity with juniors under the governing precedent.

The applicant, a retired Superintendent of Central Tax, challenged the order dated 16 October 2024 refusing his claim for pay parity with his junior, Shri P. Madhusudan Babu. He sought stepping up of pay from 17 January 2004, 17 January 2008 and 17 January 2018, with consequential pensionary benefits.

He also challenged the Department of Revenue’s order dated 10 April 2023, which directed that the Karnataka High Court’s decision in C.R. Madhava Murthy v. Union of India be treated as personam.

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 20 December 2024.

Whether the applicant was entitled to have his pay stepped up to the level of his junior, with consequential benefits.

Whether the impugned order refusing the applicant’s claim, and the direction to treat the Madhava Murthy judgment as personam, could stand in light of the Tribunal’s decision in R.S. Venkataram.

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, (2022) 6 SCC 183; the review petitions were dismissed on 21 February 2023.

It also applied its own decision in R.S. Venkataram, which had granted similarly placed applicants pay stepping-up relief while making that decision subject to the pending SLPs identified therein.

The Tribunal invoked uniformity and consistency in judicial decisions as the basis for following that prior ruling.

The Tribunal treated the applicant’s claim as governed by its decision in R.S. Venkataram, which had considered the effect of the Madhava Murthy judgments and granted relief to the applicants before it.

Finding no reason to take a different view, the Tribunal applied the principle of uniformity and consistency and held that the applicant was entitled to similar relief.

The judgment does not separately analyse the applicant’s individual pay history or independently determine the validity of the challenged departmental instruction.

No order was made as to costs.