Union of India & Ors Vs. Sushil Kumar
Paul & Ors  INSC 244 (24 April 1998)
Nanavati, S.P. Kurdukar. Nanavati . J.
24TH DAY OF APRIL, 1998 Present:
Mr. Justice G.T. Nanavati Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.P. Kurdukar P.P. Malhotra, Sr.Adv.,
Rajiv Nanda, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Ms. Sushma Suri, Advs. with him for the
appellants. Ms. Sarla Chandra, Adv. for the Respondents.
following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
have heard learned counsel for the parties.
only question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the
Central Administrative Tribunal was right in allowing the application of the
respondents directing the appellants to step up their pay so as to make it at
par with the pay of B.C. Mishra who was their junior but getting a higher pay.
held by the Tribunal that the respondents and Mishra belonged to the same cadre
and their pay scales were also the same in the lower posts and, therefore, they
are entitled to the benefit of stepping up . But, what the Tribunal has failed
to take into consideration is the Circular dated 4.11.1993 issued by the
Government of India, Department of Personnel & Training which clearly
provides that the anomaly for granting benefit of stepping up of pay should be
directly as a result of the application of fundamental rule 22-C and that if a
junior officer draws a higher pay in the lower post either because of advance
increments or on any other account then the provision of stepping up would not
apply in such a case. Moreover in paragraph 2(c) of the Circular it is,
further, provided that if a senior joins the higher post, later than the
junior, for whatsoever reason, whereby he draws less pay than the junior, in
such a case senior cannot, claim stepping up of pay at per with the junior.
this case what had happened was that the respondents and Mishra were appointed
as typists clerks on different dates but were promoted to the post of Welfare
Inspector Grade -III on the same date. Mishra was promoted to Grade II earlier
than the respondents on ad hoc basis. He was promoted as Welfare Inspector
Grade II on 1.2.1981 on ad hoc basis and worked continuously on the higher post
upto 1.1.84 on which date the two respondents and Mishra were promoted as
Welfare Inspectors Grade II on regular basis. At that time he was getting a
higher pay than the respondents because of his earlier ad hoc promotion. Mishra
was again promoted as Welfare Inspector Grade I on ad hoc basis and worked on
that post continuously from 28.7.86 to 13.1.93.
13.1.93 the respondents and Mishra were promoted to Grade I on regular basis.
On that date also Mishra was getting a higher pay because of his ad hoc
promotion as Welfare Inspector Grade I. It was for that reason that Mishra,
even though was a junior, was getting more pay than the respondents. In view of
these facts, the Circular governing stepping up of pay issued by the Railway
Board and the law Saxena ( 1997 (6) SCC 360 ) the respondents were not entitled
to the benefit of stepping up. The Tribunal, thus committed an error in
granting that benefit to the respondents. We, therefore, allow these appeals
and set aside the impugned orders of the Tribunal.
order as to costs.