SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(SC) 528

G.T.NANAVATI, S.P.KURDUKAR
UNION OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
SUSHILKUMAR PAUL – Respondent


Advocates:
applied : Union of India v. 0.P. Saxena, 1997 6 SCC 360

Judgment

NANAVATI, J.

( 1 ) DELAY condoned.

( 2 ) SPECIAL leave granted.

( 3 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties.

( 4 ) THE 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 bring it on a par with the pay of B. C. Mishra who was their junior but was getting a higher pay.

( 5 ) IT is 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 and 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 eitherbecause of advance increments or on any other account then the provision of stepping up would not apply in such a case. Moreover in par


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top