Stepping up of pay is impermissible where salary differences arise from voluntary options or non-identical career progressions.

The applicant joined the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) as a Primary Teacher (PRT) and was promoted to Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) on August 23, 2002

Initially, her pay was fixed at Rs. 7,600

In 2009, she was retrospectively granted a selection grade in the PRT cadre effective from January 1, 2002

This retrospective adjustment resulted in a re-fixation of her basic pay to Rs. 7,300, which the applicant alleged was a wrongful reduction

The applicant further claimed that her junior, Smt. Ramoni, received a higher basic pay and sought "stepping up" of her pay to match the junior’s salary

In 2014, the applicant submitted a representation requesting to forgo the PRT selection scale to continue drawing pay in the TGT scale, which she believed was more beneficial; this request was granted via Annexure A13

The applicant retired on May 31, 2014, and subsequently challenged the pay fixation and the denial of stepping up, alleging financial loss in her pensionary benefits

1. Whether the pay fixation following the grant of the selection scale was conducted in accordance with the Ministry of Human Resource Development's guidelines (Annexure A4) and Fundamental Rules

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of "stepping up" of pay on par with her junior, Smt. Ramoni

The Tribunal applied Fundamental Rule (FR) 22(1)(a)(1), which governs pay fixation upon promotion to a post involving higher responsibilities by providing incremental benefits, and FR 22(1)(a)(2), which governs pay fixation upon the grant of time scales (senior/selection scales) without incremental benefits

It further relied on the Ministry of Human Resource Development Communication dated November 3, 1987 (Annexure A4), specifically Clause 6, which mandates that individuals in a selection scale shall be fixed in the senior scale of the next higher grade upon promotion

The Tribunal applied the legal principle of "stepping up," which requires specific qualifying conditions (such as identical cadre and scale) to rectify pay anomalies between seniors and juniors

The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s pay was initially fixed under FR 22(1)(a)(1) upon her promotion to TGT in 2002

However, when the selection scale was granted retrospectively in 2009, her pay had to be recalculated per Annexure A4, Clause 6, which states that those already in a selection scale are fixed in the senior scale of the next higher grade rather than the basic scale

The Tribunal noted that the applicant herself had requested to forgo the selection scale pay in 2014 after realizing the TGT entry scale was more advantageous

Upon comparing the career progressions of the applicant and her junior, Smt. Ramoni, the Tribunal found that their pay was identical (Rs. 7,075) as of January 1, 2002, and any subsequent divergence was due to individual career movements, thus disqualifying the claim for stepping up

The Tribunal found no financial loss, as the pay drawn by the applicant at retirement (Rs. 20,410 + GP 4,600) was higher than what she would have received under the selection scale (Rs. 19,930 + GP 4,800)

The court ruled that the pay fixation was procedurally correct and that the conditions for stepping up were not met, as no actual pay anomaly existed

No order as to costs was made