Stepping up of pay is unavailable where senior and junior are promoted from different feeder cadres.

The applicant, a retired Chief Loco Inspector, was appointed in the Railway Department as an Engine Cleaner on 10 March 1981 and was subsequently promoted through various posts, ultimately becoming Chief Loco Inspector on 4 May 2011 after promotion from Loco Pilot (Passenger) in the Grade Pay of ₹4,600.

He retired on 31 July 2018. A junior employee, Santosh Kumar, was promoted as Chief Loco Inspector on 13 July 2017 from the post of Loco Pilot (Mail), and his pay was fixed at ₹91,400 with effect from 22 January 2016 and ₹94,100 from 1 January 2017, allegedly exceeding the applicant’s pay.

The applicant claimed stepping up of pay under Note 10 to Rule 7 of the Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, and submitted representations dated 25 August 2017 and 2 July 2019.

The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer rejected his claim by order dated 8 January 2020 on the ground that the applicant and Santosh Kumar had been promoted from different feeder posts—Loco Pilot (Passenger) and Loco Pilot (Mail), respectively.

The applicant challenged that order before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Whether the applicant was entitled to stepping up of pay on the post of Chief Loco Inspector because a junior employee was drawing higher pay after promotion to the same post?

Whether the statutory conditions for stepping up under Note 10 to Rule 7(10) of the Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 were satisfied when the applicant and his junior were promoted from different feeder posts or cadres?

Whether the higher pay of the junior, resulting from pay fixation and the 30% pay element applicable to running staff, constituted an anomaly attributable to the applicable pay-fixation rules?

The Tribunal applied Note 10 to Rule 7(10) of the Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, which permits stepping up of a senior Railway servant’s pay where the senior was promoted before 1 January 2016 and draws less pay than a junior promoted thereafter, subject to conditions including that both belong to the same cadre, occupy identical promotional posts, draw pay under identical lower and higher pay structures, and that the anomaly directly results from the applicable pay-fixation rule.

The Tribunal also relied on Railway Board Establishment Circular No. 133/2019, which clarifies that Loco Pilot (Goods), Loco Pilot (Passenger), and Loco Pilot (Mail/Express) constitute distinct seniority units and that stepping up is unavailable where the senior and junior are promoted from different feeder posts or cadres.

It further applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Maheshkumar Chandulal Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2025) 1 SCC 490, which requires strict fulfilment of the conditions governing stepping up and holds that a junior’s higher pay resulting from normal pay fixation, prior service, or advance increments does not necessarily constitute an actionable anomaly.

The Tribunal also referred to R. Swaminathan and Union of India v. M. Suryanarayana Rao, which establish that higher pay arising from earlier officiation, prior service, or other permissible pay-fixation factors is not a ground for stepping up.

The Tribunal held that the applicant and Santosh Kumar did not satisfy the same-cadre requirement because the applicant had been promoted from Loco Pilot (Passenger), whereas Santosh Kumar had been promoted from Loco Pilot (Mail), which the Railway Board treated as distinct feeder cadres and seniority units.

Although both ultimately occupied the post of Chief Loco Inspector, the difference in their pay arose from the fixation of Santosh Kumar’s pay based on his pay in the feeder post and the addition of the 30% running-staff pay element, rather than from an erroneous application of the stepping-up rule.

Applying Rule 7(10), RBE No. 133/2019, and the Supreme Court’s strict interpretation of stepping-up provisions, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant could not claim parity merely because he was senior or had entered the promotional post earlier.

The Tribunal therefore found no illegality in the rejection order dated 8 January 2020.

The Original Application was dismissed, all pending Miscellaneous Applications were deemed disposed of, and no order was made as to costs.