Voluntary exercise of option resulting in lower pay than junior precludes stepping up of pay.

The husband of the original applicant (the "senior employee") was a Senior Audit Officer who retired on 31.01.2004

During a pay revision in 2003, both the senior employee and his junior, Shri P.K. Bhatia, had their pay fixed at Rs. 11,025/-

However, while the junior’s pay was fixed w.e.f. 01.07.2003, the senior employee’s pay was fixed w.e.f. 01.11.2003

This discrepancy occurred because the senior employee voluntarily exercised a fresh option to have his pay fixed from the date of his increment

Consequently, the junior drew a higher salary than the senior for a period of four months

The senior employee’s representations regarding this anomaly were unsuccessful during his lifetime; following his death, his wife (and subsequently her legal heirs) pursued this application to quash the rejection order dated 11.12.2009 and seek re-fixation of pension and arrears

1. Whether a senior employee is entitled to the "stepping up" of pay under Fundamental Rule 22 when a junior draws a higher salary due to the senior employee’s voluntary exercise of a pay fixation option

2. Whether the resulting pay difference for a limited period constitutes a wrongful anomaly requiring departmental rectification

The court primarily interpreted Rule 22 of the Fundamental Rules (FR), which governs the "stepping up" of a senior's pay to match a junior’s when an anomaly arises directly from the application of pay fixation rules, subject to specific conditions such as belonging to the same cadre and identical scales of pay

It relied on the principle from Sher Singh v. Union of India, which clarifies that a junior drawing higher pay due to advance increments or specific personal options does not always constitute an anomaly for the purposes of stepping up pay

The court also noted Commissioner and Secretary to Govt of Haryana v. Ram Sarup Ganda, which generally supports stepping up to remove anomalies where juniors receive higher pay than seniors in the same cadre

The Tribunal found that the pay difference was an admitted fact but attributed it entirely to the senior employee’s own actions

The court reasoned that since the senior employee was a Senior Audit Officer, he was presumed to be aware of the legal and financial consequences of exercising a voluntary option for pay fixation based on his increment date

The Tribunal held that the four-month period during which the junior drew higher pay was a "natural outcome" of this voluntary choice rather than any arbitrary or illegal action by the respondents

Applying the ratio in Sher Singh, the Tribunal concluded that such a situation does not satisfy the strict criteria for "stepping up" under Rule 22 of the Fundamental Rules because the discrepancy did not arise from the departmental application of rules, but from the individual's choice

It ruled that the senior employee was not entitled to stepping up of pay as the situation was a result of a voluntarily exercised option

No costs were awarded, and all associated Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of