1. Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court has set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal’s orders directing the Union of India to step up the respondent’s pay to match that of a junior officer. The Court held that no valid pay anomaly existed, because the junior officer—though promoted later to Section Officer (A)—had joined service 14 years earlier, accumulated more increments, and received financial upgradation (ACP) long before the respondent. Under Note 10 of Rule 7 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and Clauses 3(e) and 3(f) of the DoPT OM dated 26.10.2018, such circumstances do not entitle a senior to pay stepping-up. The writ petition was allowed and the Tribunal’s orders were quashed.
2. Facts
The respondent joined the Controller of Defence Accounts Department as Auditor on 29.04.1986. He became Senior Auditor in 1992 and was later promoted to Section Officer (A) on 06.08.2001 through LDCE. His colleague, Mr. Sujit Kumar, joined service on 11.04.1972—14 years before the respondent—and received promotions earlier in the feeder grades.
Despite being promoted to SO(A) on 09.01.2002—months after the respondent—Mr. Kumar was drawing higher pay due to his earlier appointment, longer service, and grant of ACP financial upgradation in 1999.
The respondent sought stepping-up of pay to bring his salary on par with Mr. Kumar. His request was rejected on 05.10.2018. He filed an OA before CAT in 2019 seeking parity. The Tribunal allowed the OA on 25.05.2023, directing stepping-up and consequential benefits. A review was dismissed on 28.11.2023. The Union of India challenged these orders before the High Court.
3. Issues
- Whether stepping-up of pay can be granted when a junior earns more due to longer service, earlier promotions, and ACP upgradation.
- Whether Note 10 under Rule 7 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 prohibits stepping-up when the junior was already drawing higher pay in the feeder post.
- Whether Clauses 3(e) and 3(f) of the DoPT OM dated 26.10.2018 bar parity when the senior joined later and thus had fewer increments.
- Whether CAT erred in relying on the R. Sridharan decision despite factual distinctions.
- Whether limitation affected the respondent’s claim (issue left open as matter decided on merits).
4. Petitioners’ arguments
The Union of India argued that CAT ignored the significant difference in length of service between the parties. Mr. Kumar joined in 1972 and therefore accumulated substantially more increments, resulting in a legitimately higher pay at every stage.
They contended that stepping-up applies only when an anomaly arises due to application of FR 22-C (now FR 22(I)(a)(1)). Here, the anomaly was not created by pay fixation rules but by service length, which is expressly excluded under Note 10 of Rule 7.
Reliance was placed on:
• Union of India v. R. Swaminathan (1997) 7 SCC 690 — stepping-up is impermissible when the junior receives ACP or advance increments.
• Clauses 3(e) and 3(f) of OM dated 26.10.2018 — parity cannot be claimed where the senior joined later or the junior’s higher pay is due to longer service or ACP.
They argued that CAT misapplied the R. Sridharan case because, unlike here, in Sridharan the junior was drawing lower pay in the feeder cadre, making it a true anomaly.
5. Respondent’s arguments
The respondent, appearing in person, asserted that the petitioners had accepted CAT’s order during contempt proceedings and were estopped from challenging it. He submitted that the DoPT OM of 26.10.2018 mandates parity once both senior and junior occupy the same higher post.
He relied heavily on the R. Sridharan ruling, asserting that the principle—senior must not draw lower pay than junior in the same post—applied directly. He argued that refusal of stepping-up violated equality under Articles 14 and 16 and claimed that pay disparity after promotion must be corrected irrespective of the reason for initial difference.
6. Analysis of the law
The Court examined the career graph on page 7 of the judgment, showing that Mr. Kumar had consistently drawn higher pay at every stage even before promotion to SO(A), due to:
• earlier appointment (1972),
• earlier promotion in feeder post,
• ACP benefit in 1999, and
• more increments accumulated over time.
This data demonstrated that the alleged “anomaly” was not created by promotion but by historical service advantage, which does not justify stepping-up.
(a) Note 10 of Rule 7 expressly bars stepping-up
The Court reproduced Note 10 and emphasized two clauses:
• Senior must have been drawing equal or higher pay at time of promotion.
• Anomaly must arise solely due to application of FR 22 (pay-fixation rule).
Neither requirement was satisfied:
– The respondent drew lower pay even in the feeder post.
– The junior’s higher pay stemmed from ACP and earlier service, not FR 22.
Thus, stepping-up was impermissible.
(b) DoPT OM 26.10.2018 — Clauses 3(e) and 3(f)
These clauses list situations not constituting anomalies, including:
• where the senior joined later and therefore had fewer increments, and
• where the junior’s pay is higher due to “longer length of service” or ACP.
Both apply here. CAT relied solely on Clause 3 but ignored the exclusions in 3(e) and 3(f), which control the outcome.
(c) Distinguishing R. Sridharan
Sridharan involved a junior drawing lower pay in the feeder grade—an actual anomaly. Here, the junior drew higher pay in the feeder grade as well, making Sridharan factually inapplicable.
The Court held that CAT’s reasoning was fundamentally flawed and contrary to governing rules.
7. Precedent analysis
1. Union of India v. R. Swaminathan (1997) 7 SCC 690
Held that stepping-up cannot be granted when junior’s higher pay results from ACP or advance increments. Applied directly here.
2. DoPT OM 26.10.2018, Clauses 3(e) and 3(f)
Clarify that differences due to earlier appointment or length of service do not constitute anomalies. CAT ignored these binding clauses.
3. R. Sridharan decision (CAT Madras)
Distinguished because the junior in that case earned lower pay in the feeder grade, unlike here.
The Court concluded that established service-law principles prohibit equalisation in such situations.
8. Court’s reasoning
The High Court held:
• The junior’s higher pay was a legitimate consequence of earlier appointment, longer service, ACP benefits and increments.
• Stepping-up is a narrow exception, not a general right, and applies only when the anomaly arises due to pay fixation on promotion under FR 22.
• Note 10 and OM 26.10.2018 explicitly bar stepping-up in cases like this.
• The Tribunal misapplied case law and ignored binding rules.
• On merits, the respondent has no entitlement to parity; therefore, the Court did not examine limitation.
The CAT’s orders were quashed.
9. Conclusion
The writ petition was allowed. The Court set aside both:
• the CAT order dated 25.05.2023 granting stepping-up, and
• the review order dated 28.11.2023.
The respondent was held not entitled to pay stepping-up, as no pay anomaly existed under applicable rules. No costs were awarded.
10. Implications
This ruling has significant consequences for government pay-fixation disputes:
• Senior employees cannot claim parity merely because a junior earns more after promotion.
• Length of service, increments, ACP/MACP benefits and earlier promotions are valid reasons for higher pay and do not create anomalies.
• DoPT OM 26.10.2018 plays a decisive role in rejecting stepping-up claims.
• Tribunals must apply exceptions within Note 10 and OM 3(e)–3(f), not just general stepping-up principles.
• The judgment provides a clear framework for resolving parity disputes across ministries.
It affirms strict adherence to statutory pay-fixation rules and prevents misuse of stepping-up provisions.
CASE LAW REFERENCES
1. Union of India v. R. Swaminathan (1997) 7 SCC 690
Stepping-up not permissible when junior’s higher pay flows from ACP or longer service.
2. DoPT OM dated 26.10.2018, Clauses 3(e) & 3(f)
Differences due to earlier appointment, increments, ACP/MACP do not constitute pay anomalies.
3. R. Sridharan (CAT Madras)
Distinguished on facts—junior there drew lower pay in feeder grade; not applicable here.
FAQs
1. Why did the High Court reject stepping-up of pay?
Because the junior’s higher pay was due to longer service, increments and ACP—not due to any anomaly from promotion or pay fixation.
2. Does higher pay of a junior automatically entitle a senior to parity?
No. Pay parity is denied when differences arise from legitimate service-length advantages or ACP benefits.
3. What rules were decisive in the Court’s decision?
Note 10 of Rule 7 CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 and Clauses 3(e)–3(f) of DoPT OM 26.10.2018, both of which prohibit stepping-up in such circumstances.
