Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AMIT RAWAL, K. V. JAYAKUMAR, JJ.
The Principal Accountant General (A & E) - Appellant
Versus
B.Remadevi, Retired Supervisor, OE (Bills) - Respondents
OP (CAT) No. 54 of 2021
Decided on : 05-02-2025
(A) Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Pay fixation - Assured Career Progression Scheme - The Tribunal directed the petitioners to step up the pay of the applicants (seniors) to the level of their juniors who were drawing higher pay due to the ACP Scheme - The Supreme Court's precedent established that a senior government servant is entitled to stepping up of pay when a junior is drawing more due to an anomaly. (Paras 9 , 10 , 11 )
(B) Employment Law - Principle of equal pay for equal work - The court reaffirmed that all similarly situated persons must be treated alike, as failing to do so violates Article 14 of the Constitution. (Paras 9 , 10 )
Facts of the case:
The applicants were appointed as Lower Division Clerks and later promoted, but their juniors received higher pay due to the ACP Scheme, leading to a pay anomaly.
Findings of Court:
The court found merit in the applicants' claims and directed the stepping up of their pay to match that of their juniors.
Issues: The main issue was whether seniors are entitled to stepping up of pay when juniors draw more due to the ACP Scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that seniors are entitled to stepping up of pay to eliminate anomalies, citing prior judgments that support this principle.
Result: The O.A. was allowed, directing the respondents to step up the pay of the applicants.
Based on the provided legal document, the key legal principles are as follows:
Seniors are entitled to pay adjustment, known as "stepping up," to match their juniors' pay when an anomaly arises due to pay fixation schemes such as the ACP Scheme. This principle is well-established and has been reaffirmed through precedents (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that all similarly situated employees must be treated equally to avoid violations of Article 14 of the Constitution, reinforcing the principle of equal pay for equal work (!) (!) .
When an anomaly occurs—specifically, when juniors receive higher pay than seniors due to upgradation schemes—the senior employee is entitled to have their pay stepped up to the level of the junior from the date the anomaly arose (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The principle applies irrespective of whether the upgradation was personal or scheme-based, provided that the anomaly is directly attributable to the upgradation scheme (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court's approach is consistent with the broader legal doctrine that employees in similar circumstances should be treated alike, and any deviation resulting in pay disparities due to scheme benefits should be rectified to prevent discrimination (!) (!) (!) .
The court has upheld the authority of tribunals and courts to direct pay re-fixation and stepping up in cases where pay anomalies are identified, ensuring fairness and adherence to constitutional principles (!) (!) .
The legal stance is clear that pay fixation schemes like the ACP Scheme, which create anomalies, must be interpreted and applied in a manner that ensures senior employees are not prejudiced and are granted equitable pay adjustments (!) (!) (!) (!) .
In summary, the courts have consistently held that when pay anomalies due to upgradation or similar schemes occur, senior employees are entitled to have their pay stepped up to match that of their juniors, from the date the anomaly arose, to uphold principles of fairness and equality under the law.
JUDGMENT :
K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J.
The present OP(CAT) is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.A.No.635/2016 dated 19.02.2021, whereby the following claim of the applicants were allowed.
"i) Call for the records leading up to Annexure A-16 and A-18 to A-22 and to quash the same.
ii) Direct the respondents to step up the pay of the applicants and equate the same to the pay drawn by their juniors Ms. P. sudha Devi, Ms. Shylamole Wilson Jacob, Ms. E. Lalithambal, Ms. Rollin Patricia and again Ms. P. Sudha Devi respectively with effect from 19.05.2003. 31.08.2005, 19.02.2003, 01.12.2000 and 19.05.2003 from which day respective juniors started getting higher pay.
(iii) Direct the respondent to refix the pension payable and other retirement benefits, on the basis of the refixation of the applicants pay as aforesaid"
2. The facts in brief necessary for disposal of this OP(CAT) is as follows:
The applicants (five in numbers) were appointed as Lower Division Clerks in the office of the petitioners on various dates. Thereafter, they were promoted as Upper Division Clerk (Accountant). Some of the juniors of the respondents/applicants were drawing a higher pay than the seniors due to the grant of Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) to juniors and their pay was fixed at a higher level. Therefore, the respondents/applicants sought a direction for the re-fixation of pay.
3. The Tribunal, as per order dated 19.02.2021, directed the petitioners to step up the pay of the applicants to the level of their juniors and grant consequential reliefs.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents/applicants supported the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners/Union of India and its officers submitted that the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is legally unsustainable.
6. We have heard the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.
7. Adv.K.I. Mayankutty Mather, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal is not justified in directing the petitioners to step up the pay of the respondents/applicants to the level of their juniors and to grant consequential reliefs.
8. The short question involved in this case is whether, seniors are entitled for stepping up of pay when their juniors are drawing more pay due to the grant of ACP Scheme?.
9. The Tribunal allowed the claim noticing the rival contentions of the parties. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
“6. The applicants in this case mainly relied upon G. Santhanam & Others v. Union of India and Others in O.A.No. 234/2017 of C.A.T, Madras Bench and All India Postal Accounts Employees Association and Another v. Union of India and Others in O.A. No. 2124/2011 of the C.A.T, Principal Beneh and Ram Chand Chelani v. Union of India and Others decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in W.P No. 4913/2012 (S) dated 24.03.2014 in support of their case.
7. According to the counsel for the applicants, the applicants were drawing lesser pay than their juniors due to the anomaly which has happened when ACP was granted. According to the counsel for the applicants, they are entitled to the stepping up of their pay at par with their juniors. According to the counsel, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana and Others v. Ram Sarup Ganda and Others reported in 2011 (15) SCC 772, has clearly held that if there is an anomaly that senior government servant drawing a lesser pay than their junior, he is entitled to get his pay stepped up in order to bring it at par with his junior. In the case of Ram Chand Chelani v. Union of India and Others is also a similar case and directly applicable to the present case.
8. The counsel for the respondents would contend that a Scheme of granting ACP clearly states that it is purely personal and there is no scope for junior senior fixation. It was also contented that th
Seniors are entitled to stepping up of pay to match juniors when an anomaly arises due to pay fixation schemes, as established by precedent.
Judicial ruling affirms equal pay adjustment rights for senior employees despite increment anomalies resulting from different departmental exam timings.
Stepping up of senior's pay denied due to different cadres, no FR 22 anomaly, diverse promotions/ACP.
The court emphasized that under the MACP Scheme, no stepping up of pay is admissible for a senior employee if a junior employee in the same grade has higher pay, and financial upgradation under the M....
Senior's pay must be stepped up to match junior's in same cadre/identical posts when anomaly arises from FR 22(I)(a)(1) application and pay fixation options, per DOP&T guidelines.
Senior entitled to pay stepping up under FR 22 to match junior in same cadre despite different entry; refixation without hearing violates natural justice.
Removal of pay anomaly by stepping-up pay scale of seniors is justified.
Stepping up of senior's pay allowed when anomaly arises from junior's FR 22(I)(a)(1) option, despite pre-2006 ACP, in same cadre with identical scales.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
