Seniors are entitled to stepping up of pay to remove anomalies when juniors in the same cadre draw higher pay due to MACP/ACP, as administrative instructions cannot override the constitutional principles of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16.

Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):

1. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 against the order dated 27.07.2022 (Annexure A-1) read with letter dated 24.08.2022 (Annexure A-2) vide which the claim of the applicant for stepping up of his pay at par with his juniors has been reject ted on the ground that the same is not permissible as second step up of pay is not allowed and there is no provision for stepping up of pay in such like cases as benefit of financial upgradation under MACP is personal in nature and a senior cannot claim step up of pay at par with a junior.

2. The applicant further sought direction to the respondents to step up the pay of the applicant at par with his juniors S/Sh. M.C. Mangla or A.K. Seth with arrears thereon and fixation/release of retiral dues on that basis with arrears thereon alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date amount became due to the actual date of payment.

3. Lets have a quick glance over the facts first. The applicant joined government service as LDC on 19.03.1976 and was appointed as Stenographer (Ordinary Grade) through LDCE w.e.f. 08.07.1977. He was promoted as Inspector under the 25% departmental quota w.e.f. 30.10.1982 and further promoted as Superintendent on 23.09.2002. He was granted non-functional Grade Pay of ₹5,400/- after four years, w.e.f. 23.09.2006. However, his juniors, namely Sh. M.C. Mangla, appointed as Superintendent on 21.04.2003, and Sh. A.K. Seth, promoted as Superintendent on 15.10.2007, started drawing higher pay than the applicant, resulting in a clear pay anomaly.

4. The issue of stepping up of pay of seniors at par with juniors was earlier rejected by the department citing lack of provision under Rules 7(8) and 7(10) of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016. However, similarly situated employees succeeded before this Hon’ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 1019-CH-2011, relying upon O.A. No. 156-JK-2009 (Ashok Kumar case), which was upheld by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No. 12894 of 2010 and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 7278/2011 decided on 02.05.2011 (Annexures A-4, A-5, A-6). The said judgment was implemented vide order dated 23.10.2012. Further identical matters, including O.A. No. 1084-CH-2011 (Sunil Behl case) and O.A. No. 56-PB-2013, were also allowed and upheld by the High Court on 19.08.2013 (Annexure A-7).

5. Relying upon the above settled law, the applicant submitted representations dated 08.08.2014, 23.09.2015, and 15.11.2016 seeking stepping up of his pay at par with his juniors (Annexures A-8, A-9, A-10). Ultimately, the respondents accepted his claim and issued an order dated 09.04.2018 stepping up his pay at par with junior Sh. A.K. Seth w.e.f. 02.11.2012, though actual arrears were restricted to three years (Annexure A-3). Despite this, arrears of pay, pension, and retiral benefits were not released, compelling the applicant to submit a further detailed representation dated 23.08.2021 (Annexure A-12). Subsequently, the DoPT, vide letter dated 30.11.2021 (Annexure A-13), advised the Department of Revenue to dispose of the applicant’s case as per MACP guidelines. Contrary to the earlier acceptance and binding judicial precedents, the respondents rejected the applicant’s claim vide orders dated 27.07.2022 and 24.08.2022 (Annexures A-1 and A-2), citing MACP being personal and admissible only once. The said rejec