Stepping-up of Pay Cannot Be Denied Solely Based on Caste Reservation Category of Junior Employees

The petitioner, a retired Head Clerk (Group-C), retired from the Department of Tribal Welfare on 31.10.2023.

During his tenure, his pay was "stepped-up" twice (in 2010 and 2014) to match the higher pay of his junior, Sri Atindra Debbarma.

Upon retirement, his last basic pay was recorded as Rs. 68,400/-. However, the Accountant General (AG) reduced this pay to Rs. 64,500/- in the Pension Payment Order (PPO), questioning the validity of the "stepping-up".

The AG’s office contended that stepping-up is impermissible across different categories (petitioner being SC and the junior being ST) due to reservation roster methods.

Consequently, the respondents withheld Rs. 2,50,000/- from the DCRG and failed to finalize the commutation of pension.

The State also later alleged an anomaly regarding an advance training increment.

1. Whether the pay of a senior employee can be denied the benefit of "stepping-up" solely on the basis that the senior belongs to the SC category and the junior belongs to the ST category.

2. Whether the reduction of the petitioner’s pay and withholding of pension benefits without a hearing violates the principles of natural justice.

The court primarily interpreted the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 and the 8th Amendment Rules, 2013.

The court applied the fundamental legal principle that administrative actions resulting in civil consequences, such as the reduction of pay or pension, must adhere to the Principles of Natural Justice, specifically the right to be heard (Audi Alteram Partem).

The court examined the absence of any statutory provision within the Pay Rules that creates a bar on "stepping-up" based on the reservation category (SC vs. ST) of the employees involved.

The court found that the reasoning provided by the Accountant General’s office—that stepping-up was impermissible because the petitioner was SC and his junior was ST—was legally unsustainable as no such distinction exists in the Tripura State Civil Services Revised Pay Rules.

Regarding the State’s new plea of an "increment anomaly," the court noted that the department had previously supported the petitioner’s pay fixation in correspondence.

Most significantly, the court determined that the respondents reduced the petitioner’s basic pay and withheld his retirement benefits unilaterally without providing him an opportunity to be heard, reaching the conclusion that such an act is a clear violation of natural justice.

The court emphasized that pensionary matters cannot be kept pending indefinitely to the prejudice of a retired employee.

The court directed the respondents to: (i) immediately review the alleged pay anomaly after granting the petitioner a formal hearing; (ii) finalize the pay and release the remaining gratuity and commutation benefits; and (iii) pay interest @ 7% per annum on the withheld amounts from the due date until the actual date of payment.