Reserved on 06.01.2026 Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad This the 09 th day of January, 2026 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)

Original Application No. 1043 of 2018 Sankar Kumar Sharma, Chief Loco Inspector (Electric), East Central Railway, Mughalsarai Son of late Manindra Kumar Sharma, Resident of House No 72 Vinod Petha Gali, Galla Mandi Chauraha, Post Office Mughalsarai, District Chandauli.

……….. APPLICANT By Advocate: Shri A K Dave Versus

1. Union of India through General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur.

2. Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Mughalsarai (Deen Dayal Upadhyay Nagar), Chandauli.

3. Senior Divisional Personal Manager, East Central Railway, Mughalsarai, District Chandauli.

4. Divisional Personal Officer – I, East Central Railway, Mughalsarai, District Chandauli.

5. Senior Divisional Engineer (Operation / TRS), East Central Railway, Mughalsarai, District Chandauli.

.………RESPONDENTS By Advocate: Shri Raj Pal Singh ORDER (By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)

Shri AK Dave, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Raj Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.

2. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:

“(i) quash the impugned rejection Letter No. EE/TRS/Running Super Part – I/Mughal/06 dated

01.06.2018 (Annexure A-1) passed by respondent no ¾.

(ii) to direct the respondent authorities to consider the request of the Applicant regarding his claim for stepping up of his pay at par with his junior counterpart from 01.07.2012 and to pay arrear of difference of amount of pay with interest.

(iii) to direct the respondents to pay all the consequential benefits.

(iv) to pass any other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(v) award cost of application / petition.

3. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 01.06.2018 passed by the respondent no 03/04 by way of which the applicant’s claim for stepping up of pay has been rejected. Through this OA, the applicant has contended that in grave violation of rules, his pay has been fixed at a lower scale than his junior counterpart and therefore, he is liable to be given the benefit of stepping up of pay. Thus, by way of the OA, the applicant has sought the quashing of the impugned order with a direction to the respondents to step up his pay by way of refixation from the due date and pay the arrear amount along with interest. Respondents on the other hand have contended that the applicant has already been allowed the benefit of stepping up of pay and as per the extant rules and provisions, the same benefit cannot be given to him again.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant’s pay was fixed less than the pay of a junior person in the same cadre. The applicant made representation and respondents vide order dated 01.06.2018 rejected the same observing that stepping up of pay is available only once after implementation of a pay commission. Referring to the aforesaid fact, learned counsel for the applicant referred to the information received under the Right to Information Act (annexure A-8) and further argued that Deputy Director/ Estt. (P&A) II, Railway Board itself has admitted that stepping up of pay in case of anomaly with the junior employee is available in each pay commission. Thus, it was argued that observation of the respondents rejecting the prayer of the applicant on the ground that on the implementation of 6^th pay commission, once the applicant was allowed stepping up of his pay with his junior namely Shri Ratan Kumar Lal then second prayer during the lifetime of same pay commission for stepping up is wrong and contrary to the information given in the Right to Information Act