The Tribunal directed consideration of a pay anomaly claim based on pending Supreme Court decisions regarding similar ACP/MACP benefits for senior employees.

ORAL ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

The applicant has filed the OA seeking the following relief “ to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the third respondent in Lr. No.PAG(G&SSA)/PC- I/Anomaly/2015-16/6 dated 25.05.2015 and quash the same and direct the respondents to step up the basic pay of the applicant on par with his junior K.M.Subramaniam as on 22.01.2003 and again from 17.01.2009 with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary and refixation of pensionary benefits and render justice.”

2. The facts leading to the filing of the OA are as follows: The applicant joined service as a Lower Division Clerk (Clerk/Typist) in the former Accountant General Office, Madras, on 30.03 1972. On 01.03. 1984, the applicant was appointed to the newly created position of Senior Auditor, in the pay scale of Rs. 425-800, as part of a cadre restructuring within the Indian Audit & Accounts Department. One K.M. Subramaniam, who joined as an Auditor on 17.01.1979, was placed junior to the applicant and also appointed Senior Auditor on 01.03.1984. Both the applicant and Subramaniam had their basic pay fixed at Rs. 425/- plus a qualification pay of Rs. 15, in accordance with FR 22(I)(a)(1) (then FR22- C), and both received a basic pay of Rs. 7425/- in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000 as of 1^st January, 2003.However, when the Senior Auditors' gradation list was drawn up on 1^st March, 2004, the applicant was ranked 79th, while Subramaniam, his junior, was ranked 113th. Despite this, Subramaniam was granted a second financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme, increasing his pay to Rs. 7,700/- from 22.01. 2003, in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500. The applicant, however, did not receive this benefit, which led to Subramaniam earning a higher pay than the applicant. From 22.01.2003, Subramaniam's pay was Rs. 7,700/-, while the applicant’s pay remained Rs. 7,425/-. By 01.01.2006, Subramaniam's pay rose to Rs. 8,300/-, while the applicant's pay was only Rs. 8,125/- .In September 2008, the applicant was granted the third MACP, with his pay fixed at Rs. 17,560/-. Subramaniam was granted the third MACP on 17.01.2009, with his pay fixed at Rs. 18,690/-, along with a Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- based on his option. This created an anomaly due to the differing ACP/MACP benefits granted to the junior. The applicant was then given an ad-hoc promotion to Supervisor on 01.07. 2010, with a his pay fixed at Rs. 18,920/- and a Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/-. However, despite performing supervisory functions as a Senior Auditor, the applicant was not granted the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400,/- resulting in a situation where a senior employee performing supervisory duties was receiving a lower grade pay than juniors in the Senior Auditor grade. A similar pay anomaly in the Postal Accounts Department had been resolved by a ruling from the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in OA 2124 of 2011. The decision, which had been upheld on appeal, resulted in the Postal Department implementing the order. Since the applicant’s situation was similar, they made a representation on 29.12.2014, requesting the same benefits be extended to him. However, the representation was rejected on by the impugned order, dated 25.05.2015, based on Paragraph 20 of the MACP Scheme. Aggrieved by the decision, the applicant has filed the present OA.

3. We have carefully considered the arguments of both parties, reviewed the pleadings and the materials on record, and examined the relevant judgments referred to by them.

4. The central issue in the present OA is whether the applicant is entitled to have his grade pay stepped up to Rs. 5400/-, in line with his