IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the stepping up of pay of a senior at par with the pay being drawn by his junior is the norm, and it should be granted unless the pay disparity is a result of specific circumstances outlined in the relevant OM.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 2311/2024 -Ex. & CM APPL. 2312/2024 -Ex.

1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The applications stand disposed of.

W.P.(C) 514/2024, CM APPL. 2310/2024 -Stay., CM APPL. 2313/2024 - Addl. doc.

3. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeks to assail the order dated 07.03.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 737/2016.

4. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has allowed the O.A. preferred by the respondent, by directing the petitioner to suitably step up the pay of the respondent to bring the same at par with Mr. Sushil Kumar and Mr. L.N. Sharma, who are admittedly juniors to the respondent in the common seniority list of the All India Cadre of Statistical Investigator Grade III, which list was set up after the merger of State Cadres of Statistical Investigator on 02.12.1999. The learned Tribunal also noticed that while the respondent was initially in the Himachal Pradesh Cadre, Mr. Sushil Kumar and Mr. L.N. Sharma were in the Rajasthan Cadre and it is only upon merger of the State Cadres w.e.f. 02.12.1999 that a common seniority list was issued. In the said list, while the respondent was placed at Serial no. 195, the aforesaid Mr. Sushil Kumar and Mr. L.N Sharma were placed at Serial Nos.283 and 370 respectively.

5. Upon the respondent realising that he was drawing lesser pay than his aforesaid two juniors w.e.f. 01.02.1986, he made representations to the petitioner requesting for stepping up for his pay at par with his aforesaid juniors. This request of the respondent was accepted, resulting in issuance of an OM dated 26.03.2015 granting him notional stepping up of pay, equal to that of Mr. Sushil Kumar and Mr. L.N Sharma, for the period between 01.02.1986 to 01.12.1999 and for stepping up on actual basis w.e.f 02.12.1999.

6. This OM was, however, without any notice to the respondent withdrawn on 04.02.2016 by informing him that upon the matter being re-examined, it was found that the difference between his pay and that of his juniors which existed even before the merger could not be construed as an anomaly, as per the OMs issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT). The respondent was also informed that it is only an anomaly that had arisen after the merger of the Cadres, which could be rectified by stepping up of the pay. Being aggrieved, the respondent approached the learned Tribunal by way of the aforesaid OA which came to be allowed vide the impugned order.

7. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is wholly perverse as the learned Tribunal has directed stepping up of the respondent's pay without considering the effect of OMs dated 04.02.1966 and 04.11.1993 issued by DoPT. He contends that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that as per these aforesaid OMs stepping up of pay of a senior employee to bring the same at par with his junior is permissible only if the anomaly is result of application of Fundamental Rule 22(I)(a)(1). In the present case, the difference in the pay being drawn by the respondent and the aforesaid two employees was not a result of any option having been exercised in the manner as envisaged in Fundamental Rule 22(I)(a)(1). It was infact a result of increments being granted to them in February 1986 that the aforesaid two employees were always drawing higher pay than the respondent. The benefit of this increment was, however, extended to the respondent only in August 1986 and therefore he was all along drawing lesser pay than the two employees, he cannot claim any stepping up of pay. In support of his aforesaid plea, he seeks to place reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar Paul & Ors., [(1998) 5 SCC 268] and in Union of India & Anr. v. R. Swaminathan & Ors., [(1997) 7 SCC 690]. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside.

8. Befor