The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a senior employee to fixation of salary at par with a junior employee when the junior's salary is higher, based on the principle of stepping up of pay.

1. The petitioner, Department of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, is aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.11.2017, passed by the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi allowing OA No.1562/2017, filed by the respondent for quashing and setting aside the memorandum dated 18.06.2015, whereunder, her application for implementation of the increment payable to her from July, 2008 was turned down by the competent authority on the ground that she did not fulfil the requirement of 6 months qualifying period for earning an increment, as on 01.07.2008. Further, the respondent had sought directions to the petitioner to step up her pay at par with that of her junior, Ms.Mamta Meena w.e.f. 01.07.2008, by granting her an increment payable to her w.e.f. the said date.

2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner/Directorate of Education had issued Advertisement No.2/2006 for the post of PGT/Lecturer in the year 2006. In response thereto, the respondent, Ms.Mamta Meena and several others had submitted their applications. Both the respondent and Ms.Mamta Meena were duly selected to the post of PGT/Lecturer in schools under the petitioner/GNCTD. The petitioner had issued an offer of appointment, vide letter dated 19.07.2007, calling upon the respondent to produce all her documents relating to her educational qualifications, proof of age on 07.08.2007, etc., which she did. The respondent was declared medically fit on 05.10.2007 whereas Ms.Mamta Meena, with whom the respondent claims parity, was declared medically fit on 09.10.2007 i.e. after the petitioner.

3. A letter of appointment was issued to Ms.Mamta Meena on 07/08.11.2007 and she joined the subject post on 19.11.2007. However, on account of a delay in the verification of her age, the respondent could not be appointed on the same date as Ms.Mamta Meena. She was appointed later on, vide letter dated 28.02.2008, received by her on 04.03.2008.

4. In the final seniority list of the PGT/Lecturer promoted/appointed between 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2010, based on comparative merit of candidates issued by the petitioner vide circular dated 19.07.2013, admittedly, the respondent was placed at Sl. No.3235 whereas Ms.Mamta Meena was placed much below her at Sl.No.3279. On issuance of the aforesaid seniority list, the respondent submitted an application dated 06.11.2013 to the School Principal for stepping up of her pay to bring it at par with that of Ms.Mamta Meena, who was junior to her. The said representation was considered and rejected by the petitioners vide their impugned letter dated 18.06.2015. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed the aforesaid OA before the Tribunal.

5. The petitioners filed a counter affidavit admitting inter alia the factual position. They referred to the revised pay rules wherein the qualifying period for earning an increment has been prescribed as 6 months as on 01.07.2008 and submitted that since the respondent had joined her duty on 04.03.2008, she did not have to her credit, the qualifying period of 6 months as on 01.07.2008 and was, therefore, not entitled to any increment. As against the above, it was stated that Ms.Mamta Meena with whom the respondent sought parity, had qualified a period of six months on 01.07.2008, since she had joined duty on 07/08.11.2007 and consequently, she was granted the increment.

6. After considering the submissions made by both sides, the Tribunal observed that it is only because of non-payment of one annual increment to the respondent, that the pay of her junior was more than her and held that she was entitled to salary at par with her junior in view of the well settled legal position in the cases of Gurcharan Singh Grewal vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, (2009) 3 SCC 94; Punjab State Electricity Board vs. Gurmail Singh, (2008) 7 SCC 245; and Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana vs. Ram Swarup Ganda, (2011) 15 SCC 722, wherein, it has been held that the principle of stepping