Union of India & Ors Vs. O.P. Saxena
& Ors  INSC 645 (5 August 1997)
VERMA, SUJATA V. MANOHAR, B.N. KIRPAL
W I T
H CIVIL APPEAL NO 4662/97 (@ Special Leave Petition (c) No. 14262/97 1601/96) W
I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO.4663/97 (@ Special Leave Petition (c) No.24606 of 1996) W
I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4664/97 (@ Special Leave Petition (c) NO. 12463/97 CC
Appeal No. 8852/96 with C.A.Nos........./97 (arising out of SLP (c) CC No.
1601/96 and SLP (c) No. 24606/96)
issue which arises in these appeals from the orders of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, relates to stepping up of the pay of the
respondents who were promoted as Loco Running Supervisor prior to 1st January,
1986 vis-a- vis the pay of one Sh. P.N. Kareer who was promoted to that post
after 1st January, 1986 but was drawing higher pay than the respondents.
questions of facts and law in these appeals are the same, therefore, we propose
to dispose of these appeals by a common judgment.
Railway Administration there is a category of staff called the running staff
which is involved in the Running of frains. It includes drivers, guards,
firemen, shunters and brakesmen. The running staff are entitled to an allowance
called the 'running allowance' in view of the nature of their duties pertaining
to the running of trains.
pay scales of the running staff are considered to be incommensurable with the
ordeal of their duty and, therefore, to balance that element the Running
allowance is given to encourage greater efficiency in the running staff.
locomotive drivers are eligible for promotion, amongst other posts, to those of
Loco Supervisors. The aforesaid Sh. Kareer and the respondents, at one time,
were holding the running post of Driver Grade-C. Sh. Kareer had been promoted
as Driver Grade-C on 29th
August, 1961. In other
words, Sh. Kareer was senior to the respondents as Driver Grade-C.
respondents then opted to be promoted to the 'stationary post' of Loco Supervisor
directly from the post of Driver Grade-C which they were holding. Their
promotion was made prior to 1st January, 1986
and they were placed in the grade of Rs. 550 - 750.
chose to remain in the running staff. On 1st January, 1981 he was promoted as
Driver Grade-B in the scale of Rs. 425-640 and his pay was fixed at Rs. 580/-.
on 28th November, 1984 Sh. Kareer was promoted as Driver
Grade-A in the scale of Rs. 550-700. With effect from 1st January, 1986 revised
pay scales came into existence as a result of the fourth pay commission report.
At that time the respondents were working on the stationary post of Loco
Supervisors while Sh. Kareer was working on the running post of Driver Grade-A.
pay of running staff on promotion to Loco Supervisor's post is fixed under Rule
1316 of Indian Railway Establishment Code after fixation of an additional
component of thirty per cent of basic pay last drawn in the running cadre,
which represents the pay element in the running allowance. On introduction of
the revised pay scales with effect from 1st January, 1986 this thirty per cent
addition in the pay element of the running allowance increased which resulted
in higher fixation of pay of running staff appointed as Loco Supervisors after
1st January, 1986 than those appointed as Loco Supervisors before 1st January,
1986. Therefore, when Sh. Kareer was appointed as a Loco Supervisor, his pay as
Loco Supervisor was fixed after taking into account the aforesaid thirty per
cent addition which resulted in his getting higher pay than the respondents. It
appears that in the pay of respondent - O.P. Saxena was stepped up but when the
department discovered that the benefit had been wrongly given to him his pay
was re-fixed and recoveries were made of the excess amount paid to him. Sh.
O.P. Saxena challenged the aforesaid decision by filing OA No. 462 of 1994
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur. O.A. Nos. 191/94 and 768/93 were filed by the other respondents
seeking the benefit of stepping up.
Tribunal first decided the case of Sh. O.P. Saxena and came to the conclusion
that stepping up of the pay was admissible to him. It did not accept the
contention of appellant that Sh. Kareer was senior to the respondent - O.P. Saxena
and, furthermore, on a correct interpretation of the Railway Board's letter
dated 16th August, 1988 the principle of stepping up was not applicable.
Following that decision relief was given by the Tribunal to the other
respondents herein and, while allowing their OA Nos. 768/93 and 191/94 the
appellant was directed to step up their pay keeping the pay of Sh. Kareer in
opinion, the decision of the Tribunal directing stepping up of the pay of the
respondents herein was not correct. It had been classified by the Ministry of
Railways in its latter dated 14th September, 1990 that the principle of stepping up referred to in its earlier of 16th August, 1988 was "subject to codal
conditions being fulfilled". The principle of stepping up of pay is
contained in Rule 1316 of Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol. II which also
contains conditions which have to be followed while ordering stepping up. Two
of the conditions contained therein are:
Both the senior and junior officers should belong to the same cadre and the post
in which they have been promoted on a regular basis should be identical in the
The scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to
draw should be identical.
Presidential decision given under Rule 1316 the aforesaid conditions were
further explained as follows:
If as a result of application of the proviso to and the exception below Rule
1316 (F.R.22) the pay of the juniors more than that of the senior in the lower
post, there would be no question of stepping up the pay of the senior in the
higher post. If despite the application of the proviso to and the exception
below Rule 1313 (F.R.22) the junior's pay is less than that of the senior and
on promotion the former's pay happens to be prater than the pay of latter by
virtue of the provisions of Rule 1316 (F.R.22 C), stepping up will have to be
done with reference to the actual pay drawn by the junior in the higher
post." It is not in dispute that as driver Grate C Sh. Kareer was senior
to and was drawing more salary than the respondents. Thereafter while Sh. Kareer
remained in the cadre of running staff the respondents by choice as Loco
Supervisors. Thereafter Sh. Kareer on the one posted as Loco Supervisors.
Thereafter Sh. Kareer on the one hand and the respondents on the other belonged
to two different cadres having their own seniority list. The pay of Sh. Kareer
was fixed according to the scales which were approved for the running staff
including the running allowance. Sh. Kareer was drawing more salary as Driver
Grade-A, just before his appointment as a Loco Supervisor, than the
respondents. With the revision of pay scales with effect from 1st January, 1986
Sh. Kareer's pay was fixed at Rs. 2360/- as on 1st January, 1986 while the
salary of respondent - O.P. Saxena on the stationary to the post which he was
holding was Rs.
The sources of the recruitment to the post of Loco Supervisor in the case of Sh.
Kareer vis-a-vis the respondents being different the principle of stepping up
of pay would not arise. Whereas the respondents were promoted as Loco
Supervisors from Driver Grade-C, Sh. Kareer on the other hand was placed in the
cadre of Loco Supervisor after being promoted from the post of Driver Grade-A.
When the feeder posts of Sh. Kareer and that of the other respondents were
different the applicability of the principle of stepping up cannot apply. The
pay of Sh. Kareer had to be fixed with reference to what he was last drawing as
Driver Grade-A, a post which was never held by any of the respondents. In our
opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in applying the principle of
stepping up and in directing there fixation of the pay of the respondents.
the aforesaid reasons the appeals are allowed. The orders dated 18th May, 1995 and 4th October, 1995 of the Tribunal in OA Nos. 462 of 1994, 191 of 1994 and 768
of 1993 are set aside. There will be no order as to costs.
granted The question involved in this case is similar to the one in Civil
Appeal No. 8852 of 1996. The only difference is that the respondent in this
appeal claimed stepping up of his salary by contending that his junior one Sh.
S.K. Sood was getting higher pay than him.
respondent was appointed as a Fireman Grade-I in the running cadre in the year
1949. He was promoted to the post of Driver Grade-C and on 27th June, 1965 he was promoted to the stationary
job as ALF. Thereafter he was appointed to various stationary posts and was
allowed the benefit in fixation of pay in the respective posts and grades. His
salary as on 1st January, 1986, after the fourth Pay Commission report, was
fixed at Rs. 2900/-. He ultimately retired from service from 31st march, 1988
on which date he was drawing a salary of Rs. 3050/- Sh. S.K. Sood, with
reference to whom the respondent made a claim for stepping up of his pay, was
initially appointed as boy fireman in the year 1948 in Ferozpur Division,
whereas the respondent was appointed at Lucknow Division. Sh. Sood was promoted
as Driver Grade-C, then Driver Grade-B and lastly Driver Grade-A. He was
promoted to the stationary post of CFI with effect from 5th May, 1977 in grade of Rs. 700-900. As in the
running cadre he was drawing the maximum of Rs. 700/- in the grade, his pay on
the stationary post was fixed at Rs. 900/-.
respondent had been posted on the stationary post from the running post of
Driver Grade-C, while Sh. Sood had been posted on the stationary post from the
running post of Driver Grade-A, this had resulted in Sh. Sood getting higher
pay than the respondent.
respondent did not make any claim for stepping up of his salary as long as was
in service. Having retired on 31st March, 1988,
in July, 1991 he filed an application before the Central Administrative
Tribunal for stepping up of his pay to bring it at par with that of Sh. Sood
and also to give him consequential benefits.
Tribunal by the impugned judgment allowed the application and directed that the
pay of the respondent should be stepped up and he should be given all the
from the fact that the application of the respondent before the Central
Administrative Tribunal which was filed in July 1991 was highly belated, the
position in this case is no different from that of Union of India and Sh. Sood
were appointed to the stationary post from two different sources. The
respondent was Driver Grade-C when he was so appointed while Sh. Sood was
appointed to the stationary post from the post of Driver Grade-A. Therefore,
for the reasons contained in judgment in CA No. 5582 of 1996 the order of the
Tribunal has to be set aside.
accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order dated 27th January, 1993, of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Lucknow Bench with result that OA No. 322 of 1991 filed by the
respondent stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.