The central legal point established in the judgment is the principle of equal pay for equal work and the provision for stepping up of pay for promotees to the minimum of the higher pay band of the promotional post.

1. The petitioner-Union of India has filed the present petition assailing the order dated 6th March, 2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.1456/2015. The Tribunal has allowed the said Original Application preferred by the respondents to the extent that, they have been held entitled to pay fixation at the level of minimum entry pay applicable to Direct Recruits (DRs) to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, along with grade pay of Rs.4800/- from the date of their appointment by promotion. They have also been granted arrears arising out of the said pay fixation. The Tribunal has, however, declined the prayer made by the respondents/applicants, to treat them as DRs in the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. The Tribunal has also declined the prayer for interest on payment of arrears in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The respondents were appointed as Assistant Accounts Officer (AAO)(earlier called Junior Accounts Officer) under the 90% quota in different panel years after the implementation of the VIth Central Pay Commission Report (VIth CPC) i.e. after 01.01.2006. At this stage itself, we may refer to the Recruitment Rules (RRs) in respect of the said post of Junior Accounts Officer. The said post is to be filled by promotion, failing which by deputation. In case both these methods fail, then the posts are to be filled by direct recruitment. The extracts of the relevant Recruitment Rules are as follows:-      

3. The Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 (Revised Pay Rules) were notified on 29th August, 2008 Rules 8 thereof provide the manner of fixation of pay in the revised pay structure of the employees appointed as fresh recruits on or after1st January, 2006 while Rule 13 deals with fixation of pay on promotion on or after 1st January, 2006 on the implementation of the VIth CPC.

4. The said Rules resulted in the pay of the promotees being fixed at a lower scale than that of the DRs to the same post of Junior Accounts Officer. Consequently, the respondents approached the Tribunal to claim that they should be treated as DRs and they should be given the same pay scale as prescribed for the DRs. To this extent, the Tribunal held against the respondents, by holding that the respondents were promotees and not DRs under the aforesaid Recruitment Rules. The stand of the Petitioner before the Tribunal was that the Government had not accepted the recommendations of the National Anomaly Committee to the effect that whenever there was provision for direct recruitment in the Recruitment Rules, pay on promotion in case of promotees should be fixed at the prescribed minimum of the entry pay as prescribed for the DRs in the Revised Pay Rules, irrespective of the fact whether direct recruitment had actually taken place or not. The petitioner has contended that the Government had decided to allow stepping up of pay only in cases when a junior DR is actually drawing more pay than his senior promotee. The conditions laid down by the Petitioner were as follows:-

“(i) Stepping up of the pay of seniors can be claimed only in the case of those cadres which have an element of direct recruitment and in cases where a directly recruited junior is actually drawing more basic pay than the seniors. In such cases, the basic pay of the seniors will be stepped up with reference to the p