Stepping up of pay is inadmissible where a junior joined the cadre earlier or draws higher pay in lower posts.

The Applicants, retired Sub-Divisional Engineers (SDEs), sought the "stepping up" of their pay to match that of a junior, Shri C.P. Singh

Applicant No. 1 was appointed as a Junior Engineer (JE) on 19.12.1983, while Shri C.P. Singh was appointed earlier on 29.09.1982

Applicant No. 2 was appointed on 09.06.1981, but records showed Shri C.P. Singh had been drawing higher pay than him since 01.02.1996

The respondents had previously rejected the applicants' claims for pay parity in 2009 and 2014, citing that the conditions for stepping up were not met because the "junior" joined the cadre earlier or the disparity did not arise from the application of pay fixation rules

The applicants approached the Tribunal in 2018, specifically seeking a direction for the respondents to decide a pending appeal dated 30.09.2014

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to stepping up of pay under the provisions of Fundamental Rule (FR) 22 and relevant O.M.s

2. Whether a direction to decide a pending appeal is maintainable when the underlying claim was already rejected by the competent authority and no statutory provision for appeal exists

The court primarily applied Fundamental Rule (FR) 22 and the D.G. P & T Notes regarding the principle that a senior cannot seek stepping up if the junior was promoted or appointed to the cadre earlier

It further relied on DOP&T O.M. No. 4/7/92-Estt(Pay-I) dated 04.11.1993, which mandates that pay anomalies warranting stepping up must arise directly from the application of FR-22-C.

The O.M. clarifies that if a junior draws higher pay due to advance increments or earlier appointment, the stepping up provisions cannot be invoked

The Tribunal found that Applicant No. 1’s claim was fundamentally flawed because Shri C.P. Singh, though considered junior in some contexts, was appointed as JE earlier than Applicant No. 1 (1982 vs 1983); under FR-22, parity cannot be claimed if the junior joined the service earlier

Regarding Applicant No. 2, the Tribunal noted he had failed to contest the higher pay of Shri Singh for over nine years, rendering the claim belated

Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the applicants had not challenged the actual rejection orders passed in 2009 and 2014, but merely sought the disposal of an "appeal"

The applicants failed to demonstrate any statutory right to an appeal against such administrative rejections

Finally, the Tribunal noted that the respondents had already provided a calculation chart based on service records which the applicants could not successfully dispute

The court concluded that the grievance had already been addressed and redressed by the respondents via previous orders, and the request to decide a "pending appeal" was misconceived in the absence of a statutory provision for such an appeal

The Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit