Stepping up of pay is impermissible where senior and junior officers held different grade pays in lower posts.

The applicant, initially appointed as a Section Officer in 1998, was re-appointed as an Auditor in 2002 after failing to pass mandatory exams within the probation period.

In September 2013, both the applicant and one Shri Rajesh Kumar were selected by the UPSC for permanent absorption in DRDO as Senior Accounts Officers Grade-II.

Although the applicant was ranked higher than Shri Rajesh Kumar in the UPSC merit list and was senior to him in the DRDO seniority list, Shri Rajesh Kumar’s pay was fixed at ₹24,400 + GP ₹5,400, while the applicant’s pay was fixed at ₹20,460 + GP ₹5,400.

The applicant sought a "stepping up" of pay to match his junior, which was rejected by the respondents on 29.07.2015.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the stepping up of pay at par with his junior, Shri Rajesh Kumar, under the prevailing Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) guidelines.

2. Whether the discrepancy in pay constitutes a legal anomaly if the junior was drawing higher pay in the lower post prior to the current appointment.

DoPT Office Memorandum dated 04.11.1993, which requires that: (a) both officers belong to the same cadre; (b) the scales of pay of the lower and higher posts are identical; and (c) the anomaly arises directly from the application of Fundamental Rule (FR) 22(1)(a)(i).

Fundamental Rule (FR) 22(1)(a)(i) regulates pay fixation for government servants appointed or promoted to posts carrying duties of greater importance.

Stepping up cannot be claimed if the junior was already drawing a higher rate of pay in the lower post due to advance increments or other factors.

The Tribunal observed that at the time of selection, the applicant and Shri Rajesh Kumar were not in identical grade pays; the applicant was in GP ₹4,800, whereas Shri Rajesh Kumar was already receiving GP ₹5,400 (via MACP/advance increments).

The Tribunal reasoned that because the "junior" was already drawing a higher scale/pay in the lower post due to varying examination timelines and career progressions, the resulting disparity in the higher post did not constitute a rectifiable anomaly under the law.

Since the junior was drawing higher pay in the lower post prior to joining DRDO, the claim for parity was legally untenable and the Original Application was dismissed.