Facts
The applicant, a retired Superintendent, joined the respondent department as an LDC in 1974 and retired on 28.02.2013
Source reference: p. 2Post-retirement, he sought pay parity (stepping up of pay) under FR 22(I)(a)(1) with his junior, Shri Shyam Sundar Kataria, who was allegedly drawing a higher salary
Source reference: p. 2When his representations were not finalized, he filed OA No. 1663/2015, which the Tribunal disposed of on 04.09.2018 with a direction to the respondents to decide the matter
Source reference: p. 3Subsequently, the applicant filed CP No. 411/2019, which the Tribunal closed on 03.02.2020, observing that the junior was drawing higher pay due to MACP benefits, which does not entitle a senior to stepping up of pay
Source reference: p. 3The applicant challenged the contempt order in the Delhi High Court (WP(C) No. 4552/2021) but withdrew it with liberty to challenge a DoPT "order" dated 08.11.2019
Source reference: p. 4He then filed the present OA challenging that document and seeking the same relief of pay parity
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the present Original Application is barred by the principle of res judicata given the previous adjudication in OA No. 1663/2015 and CP No. 411/2019
Source reference: p. 5/para 4.12. Whether the DoPT document dated 08.11.2019 constitutes a challengeable "order" or a final decision on the applicant’s entitlement to stepping up of pay
Source reference: p. 6/para 4.4Law Applied
The court primarily applied the principle of res judicata, which precludes parties from relitigating issues that have been finally adjudicated by a competent court
Source reference: p. 8Regarding pay scales, it applied the settled legal principle that a senior employee cannot claim "stepping up" of pay to match a junior if the disparity arises because the junior was granted financial upgradation under the ACP or MACP Schemes
Source reference: p. 3, 7The court also examined the requirements for an appealable "order" under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
Source reference: p. 2Reasoning
The Tribunal observed that the applicant was seeking the exact same relief regarding pay parity that was previously raised in OA No. 1663/2015
Source reference: p. 8It noted that the merits of the claim had already been addressed in the order dated 03.02.2020 (CP No. 411/2019), where the Tribunal explicitly held that MACP-induced pay disparity does not justify stepping up
Source reference: p. 7Upon reviewing the "impugned" document dated 08.11.2019, the Tribunal found it was merely an internal "UO note" or noting stating that the applicant’s case had not been previously referred to the DoPT for advice, rather than a fresh substantive decision on his rights
Source reference: p. 7Therefore, the Tribunal reasoned that the applicant’s attempt to challenge this internal note was a maneuver to reopen an issue that had already attained finality
Source reference: p. 8As the parties and the subject matter remained identical to the earlier litigation, the Tribunal concluded that the principle of res judicata applied to prevent further agitation of the issue
Source reference: p. 8Holding
The Tribunal held that the OA was hit by the principle of res judicata as the issue of stepping up of pay had been finally adjudicated in previous proceedings involving the same parties
It further held that the document dated 08.11.2019 was not a fresh order but a procedural internal note
Source reference: p. 7Consequently, the OA was dismissed with no order as to costs
Source reference: p. 8All pending Miscellaneous Applications were also dismissed
Source reference: p. 8Original Court PDF
Anil Kumar KakkarvsD/o Revenue
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in