Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Shri Santosh Mehra, Member(A)
Shri Raghavendra S., Shri Ravikumar U., Shri Sanjeev C., Shri G.Srikanth, Smt. A.N.Lakshmi, Smt. Meena P.V., Ms.Padma M., Shri S.Ravi, Shri Raghavendra B.M., Smt.Margathavalli M., Shri Sahadevan K.V., Smt.Beena Thomas, Shri Kunhiraman P.V. – Appellant
Versus
The Principal Accountant General (Audit-I), Karnataka, Bengaluru-560001 – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00656/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms.Nitya Kaligotla
For the Respondents: Shri N.Amaresh
Seniors promoted before 01.01.2016 are entitled to pay stepping-up to match juniors promoted after 01.01.2016 under Rule 7(10) of CCS (RP) Rules, ensuring compliance with the provisions of FR 22.
Headnote:(A) CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 - Rule 7(10) - Application for stepping-up of pay - Anomaly in salary between senior officers and their juniors post-implementation of pay rules - The Tribunal allowed the application stating that seniors were entitled to stepping-up their pay on par with juniors promoted after 01.01.2016, confirming all conditions of pay disparity exist as a result of FR 22(1)(a)(1) provisions. The impugned endorsement was set aside. (Paras 1, 12, 24-31)
(B) Equal Pay for Equal Work - Concept of fairness in pay structures - The Tribunal emphasized the essentiality of correcting pay disparities caused by revised pay rules, asserting that differences in pay for similarly positioned employees based solely on promotion dates would violate principles of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. (Paras 24, 28)
(C) Interpretation of ‘same cadre’ - The Tribunal contended that the stipulation of belonging to the same cadre for stepping-up pay benefits was an artificial classification and thus discriminatory. The requirement should not restrict entitlement to fairness in pay for employees irrespective of the outlined conditions. (Paras 14, 24, 28)
(D) Final decision: The respondents instructed to rectify the pay anomaly through the stipulated provisions. (Paras 31)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. relief sought by applicants regarding pay stepping-up. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. counsel's submission regarding fr 22 and pay disparity. (Para 3 , 12) |
| 3. court's analysis on pay anomaly and adherence to rules. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 10 , 11 , 24 , 29) |
| 4. legal basis for stepping up salaries based on fr 22. (Para 25 , 28) |
| 5. order for implementation of pay adjustments. (Para 30) |
ORDER
Per: Hon’ble Shri Santosh Mehra ...........Member(A) Through this OA , the applicants have sought for the following reliefs:
“A. Setting aside the Endorsement dated 21.11.2022 bearing No.Pr.AG (Audit-I)/Admn II/A5/2022-23/104 (‘Impugned Endrosement’) issued by the Respondents, produced at Annexure A1;
B. Consequently, grant stepping-up of pay to the Applicants by directing the Respondents to fix the pay scale of the Applicants as per Rule 7(10) of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2016;
C. Consequently, direct the Respondents to pay arrears to the Applicants from the relevant date: and D. Pass any such further and other orders as may be necessary in the interests of justice.”
2. The Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are all working in the cadre of Senior Audit Officers in the office of the Principal Accountant General (Audit-I), Karnataka, Bengaluru i.e., the Respondent No.1. Prior to 01.01.2016, officers, junior to the applicants, working in the same posts as the applicants i.e., Audit Officers, were drawing lesser pay than the applicants, till the applicants were promoted to the post of Senior Audit Officers on different dates prior to 01.01.2016. As a direct result of the application of the provisions of FR 22(I)(a)(1) and the implementation of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 (CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016), juniors of the applicants who were promoted to the post of Senior Audit Officers later than 01.01.2016 started getting higher pay than the applicants in the same post. Since the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 specifically provides for a rectification of this anomaly under Rule 7(10), the applicants duly submitted representations to the Respondent No.1 on different dates starting from November 2018, seeking stepping-up of their pay to that of their respective juniors for rectification of the said anomaly and for payment of arrears (Annexure A2). The Respondent No.1 accordingly issued a letter dated 05.01.2021 to the Respondent No. 2, pointing out the anomaly that had arisen, enclosing comparative statements of pay, and requesting that the necessary orders for rectification be passed (Annexure A3). The same is reproduced as follows:
“No.Pr.AG(Au-I)/AdmnII/A5/PR Cell/2020-21/112. Dated 05.01.2021 To, The Comptroller & Auditor General of India, 9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, Marg, New Delhi-110124.
(Kind attention: Shri Venkatanathan V.S, Asst.Comptroller and Auditor General (N)) Sub: Rectification of anomaly in pay arising in Sr. Audit Officer's cadre as a result of juniors promoted after the implementation of recommendations of Seventh Pay Commission and their pay fixed under FR 22 (1) (a) (1).
Ref: Government of India, DOPT OM No.4/3/20 17-Estt(Pay-1) dated 26.10.2018-Stepping up of pay-Consolidated guidelines-reg.
Sir, I am to invite a reference to Government of India DOPT OM dated 26.10.2018 on the above subject and to state that consequent on revision of pay scales as per 7th Pay Commission recommendations anomaly in pay has arisen in the Sr. Audit Officer's cadre as a result of the junior promoted after 01.01.2016 and exercising option under FR 22 (I) (a) (1) for fixation of pay in Level 10 of the Pay Matrix with effect from the date of next increment in the lower post of Audit Officer whereas the senior was promoted before 01.01.2016 and the pay was fixed in Level 10 of the Pay Matrix with effect from 01.01.2016.
The following is the list of officers of this office belonging to the Sr. Audit Officer's cadre in whose case the anomaly arises:
| Batch-I | Batch-II |
| 1. Maragathavalli M, Sr. Audit Officer | 1. Beena |
