Senior entitled to pay stepping up under FR 22 to match junior in same cadre despite different entry; refixation without hearing violates natural justice.

ORDER

Per: Hon’ble Mr.Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)

1. In this batch of Original Applications a common question arises for consideration before this Tribunal and therefore the same is decided by this common order.

2. Learned counsel for the parties have made in detail submissions in lead case i.e OA No.365/2017 and therefore, the facts of this case are taken into consideration for final decision.

3. Brief facts stated in the Original Application No.365/2017 are applicant joined the respondent department in the year 1990 as Stenographer Grade-III in the pay scale of Rs.1200-30-1560-EB-40-2040. The applicant had passed the Ministerial Staff Examination in the year 1991 and as a result he could appear in the Inspector’s examination held in the year 1992. On passing the inspector’s examination in the year 1992, the applicant was given two increments.

3.1. In the year 2000, the applicant was granted Stenographer, Grade-II scale. Meanwhile, he had passed the Income Tax Officer’s Examination held in the year 2000 and became eligible for two more increments. On 25.06.2001, the applicant was promoted as Inspector and his pay was fixed at Rs.5,850/-. On 04.07.2002, one Sushil Kumar came to be appointed as Inspector on direct recruitment quota and his pay was fixed at Rs.5500. The applicants pay was upgraded to Rs.6500 w.e.f. 21.04.2004. The benefits of this pay upgradation was given to Shri Sushil Kumar also. Next date of increment of Shri Sushil Kumar as well as the applicant was 01.04.2005. On 18.10.2006, pay of both Shri Sushil Kumar and the applicant came to be fixed at Rs.6900/-.

3.2. Meanwhile Shri Sushil Kumar passed the ITO examination and therefore, he was granted two advance increments and as a result, his pay came to be fixed at a higher level at Rs.7,300/- whereas the applicant’s pay remained at Rs.6900/-. The pay of Shri Suhsil Kumar came to be fixed at Rs.7,500/- w.e.f. 01.04.2007 and the applicant’s pay was fixed at Rs.7100/- on the same date. Being aggrieved by these anomalies, the applicant submitted representation dated 18.07.2007 (Annexure-A/2) requesting to remove the anomaly by stepping up his pay at par with the pay of Shri Sushil Kumar w.e.f. 19.10.2006 under FR-27. The said representation was considered by the competent authority and pay fixation order dated 07.03.2008 (Annexure-A/3) was issued.

3.3. However, the competent authority had issued revised pay fixation order on 20.04.2017 (Annexure-A/1) in which it is stated that applicant had drawn excess pay as per Audit Objection raised by Accounts Officer ZAO, CBDT, Ahmedabad and therefore, refixation order was issued and recovery was also ordered.

3.4. Challenging the aforesaid impugned order dated 20.04.2017 (Annexure- A/1), the present Original Applications was been filed raising various grounds. It was stated that there was no dispute that Shri Sushil Kumar is junior to the applicant in the cadre of inspector and ITO and it is an accepted norm that the junior cannot be paid more salary than his senior. It was also submitted that before passing any order which has a civil consequence, the affected party was required to be given an opportunity of hearing. It was further submitted that the junior was paid higher pay due to his passing of ITO examination which entitled him to get two increments. The applicant had passed this examination and received the benefit of these two increments. The only difference is that when the applicant passed the said examination, he was given two increments in old scale and Shri Sushil Kumar was granted these increments as per the