Stepping up pay of a senior requires considering impact on all intermediate employees.

The applicant, N.K. Bhalla, who retired as Deputy Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, filed an application seeking stepping up of his pay equal to his junior, Mr. M.L. Sharma.

Bhalla's position in the seniority list of Principals as of 31.12.1991 was at serial number 49, with his date of regular appointment being 5 May 1989 through direct recruitment.

Mr. M.L. Sharma was at serial number 93, with his absorption date being 1 June 1990.

On 01.10.1991, Mr. M.L. Sharma's basic pay was Rs. 3500/-, while Bhalla's was Rs. 3300/-.

The seniority dispute between Bhalla and Sharma was subject to prolonged litigation, including OA No. 859/HR/1999 and CWP No. 11571-CAT of 2007, culminating in an order from the Hon'ble High Court dated 26.08.2015.

The High Court's order upheld the applicant's seniority over Mr. M.L. Sharma in the Principal's list (Bhalla at sr. no. 49, Sharma at sr. no. 93) but set aside the Tribunal's direction for consequential benefits related to promotions (Assistant Director and Deputy Director) since it would involve unnamed parties and open a "pandora's box".

The applicant had previously filed MA No. 60/470/2017 seeking pay fixation equal to Mr. M.L. Sharma, which was withdrawn with liberty to avail remedy.

The respondents contended that the High Court's 26.08.2015 judgment did not grant any relief to the applicant, and thus his claim for stepping up pay was unwarranted and infructuous as it was a "consequential benefit".

The applicant argued that the pay disparity as of 01.10.1991 (Sharma Rs. 3500 vs. Bhalla Rs. 3300) showed his junior earning more, and his right to step up pay was independent of the promotion issue and would not affect others' rights or recurring pension liability.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the stepping up of his pay equal to his junior, Mr. M.L. Sharma, based on their established seniority in the grade of Principal?

2. Whether the High Court's decision dated 26.08.2015, which set aside consequential promotion benefits, barred the claim for pay stepping up?

The Tribunal considered the principles of seniority fixation outlined in Clause 5 of the absorption Rules dated 4.7.1989, which states that "The seniority of the person absorbed permanently in the NVS in the grade in which he is absorbed, shall be counted with effect from the date of his absorption in the Samiti".

The judgment also implicitly referred to the general principle of "equal pay for equal work" or "stepping up of pay," where a senior cannot draw less pay than a junior, provided certain conditions are met and there is no adverse impact on others.

Additionally, the concept of "natural justice" was considered in relation to potentially affecting the rights of intermediate seniors if only two specific individuals' pay was adjusted.

The Tribunal found that while specific seniority between the applicant and Mr. M.L. Sharma had been established (Bhalla as senior), the issue of pay parity for stepping up was a separate matter from the promotion benefits denied by the High Court.

The court noted that the seniority list itself had changed multiple times due to litigation.

Crucially, the Tribunal questioned why pay parity should only be considered between serial numbers 49 (applicant) and 93 (Mr. M.L. Sharma), asking about the situation of those individuals placed between serial numbers 50 and 92.

The applicant failed to provide any explanation for this, or how and when the pay anomaly arose.

The Tribunal stated that while the applicant cannot be penalized for the inaction of others, he also cannot benefit from such inaction, as it would be against natural justice to adjust his pay without considering the implications for the intermediate seniors.

The court highlighted that there was "nothing on record as to what happens to those in between" and noted that no stepping up vis-à-vis them had been sought.

The court concluded that linking the pay parity only to Shri M.L. Sharma, without addressing the implications for other intervening seniors, made the claim unmeritorious.

It held that the claim for stepping up of pay was "totally misconceived" because the applicant failed to justify why such parity should only be considered with Mr. M.L. Sharma (serial no. 93) without addressing the pay of intervening officers (serial nos. 50-92).

The court indicated that granting such relief without considering the impact on these other individuals would be against natural justice.

Therefore, the O.A. was dismissed, with no costs awarded.