Stepping up of pay is impermissible where junior's higher pay arises from distinct service history or non-identical lower-grade pay scales.

The applicant joined the Govt. of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) as DASS Grade-II in 1969 and was regularized in Grade-I w.e.f. 16.04.1983

He retired as a Sub-Regional Employment Officer (SREO) on 31.05.2004

The applicant discovered that despite being senior to one Shri J.B.L. Tandon (placed at Sr. No. 727 and 773 respectively in the 1988 seniority list), his pay as of 01.10.1990 was fixed at ₹2420, whereas Shri Tandon received ₹2540

The applicant sought stepping up of pay to match his junior from 15.02.1990

The respondents rejected his claim on 03.08.2010 and 29.09.2014, asserting that the anomaly was not due to pay fixation rules but because the junior had previously held a different post with a higher pay scale

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of "stepping up of pay" at par with his junior, Shri J.B.L. Tandon, under the principles of FR-22

2. Whether the conditions requisite for stepping up of pay, as prescribed by DoP&T instructions, were satisfied in the instant case

The court primarily applied the principle of "stepping up of pay" as governed by Fundamental Rule 22 (I)(a)(1)

principle interpreted by the Apex Court in Union of India v. P. Jagdish (1997) 3 SCC 176, which mandates that a senior's pay be raised to match a junior's if the junior draws more pay solely due to the timing of promotion within the same cadre

This is subject to the conditions laid out in DoP&T OMs (dated 02.02.1966, 16.06.1989, and 04.11.1993) and Note 10 of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, which require that both officers belong to the same cadre, the posts be identical, and the anomaly arises directly from the application of FR-22 rather than advance increments or higher pay drawn by the junior in a lower post

The Tribunal analyzed the comparative service history and found that the three essential conditions for stepping up were not fulfilled. Specifically, the respondents established that Shri Tandon had been appointed as an Inspecting Officer (Bonus) in 1978 in a higher pay scale (₹550-900) via the Staff Selection Board

Consequently, when both were appointed as F&S Officers in 1992, the junior’s pay was fixed at a higher stage because he was already drawing a higher scale in his previous capacity

The Tribunal noted that under DoP&T OM dated 26.10.2018, if a junior draws higher pay due to factors like varying pay scales in previous cadres or officiating/ad-hoc arrangements while the senior is on deputation, it does not constitute a "strict anomaly"

Since the junior's higher pay was not a result of the mechanics of FR-22 fixation but due to his prior service history in a different pay structure, the stepping-up principle could not be invoked

It answered that an anomaly resulting from the junior drawing a higher pay scale in a lower/previous post is an exception to the rule of stepping up

Consequently, the Tribunal found the OA lacked merit and dismissed the claim for pay revision and arrears