Senior's pay must be stepped up to match junior's in same cadre/identical posts when anomaly arises from FR 22(I)(a)(1) application and pay fixation options, per DOP&T guidelines.

O R D E R

By Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J) :-

1.The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief(s) :-

―8.1 Quash and set aside the impugned communications at Annexure A-1 (Colly.) and direct the respondents to correctly fix the pay of the Applicant by stepping up of his pay at par with his juniors by fixing his Basic Pay at Rs.47,600/- along with consequential benefits including arrears of pay and other benefits; and

8.2 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and appropriate, in the circumstances of the case.‖

2. The brief facts of the case as enumerated by the learned counsel for the applicant are that the applicant was initially appointed and enrolled as a Constable (Executive) in the Delhi Police on 01.04.1986. He was promoted to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) in November 2016. Following the implementation of the 6^th Central Pay Commission and his subsequent pay fixation upon promotion, the applicant’s Basic Salary was fixed at Rs. 46,200/-. However, the applicant discovered a significant pay anomaly that several of his juniors, who were enrolled in the Delhi Police after him specifically ASI Subodh Kumar (appointed on 03.05.1986), ASI Bhim Singh (appointed on 02.04.1986), ASI Jeevan Singh (appointed on 01.06.1986), and ASI Sat Pal Singh (appointed on 02.06.1986) were all drawing a higher Basic Pay of Rs. 47,600/-.

3. Aggrieved by this disparity, the applicant submitted representations to the respondents (Annexure A-2) requesting the "stepping up" of his pay at par with his juniors. However, the respondents on 10.02.2017 and 22.03.2017, rejected the applicant's request. The respondents justified the pay difference by stating that the applicant had received his 1st financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme on 09.08.1999, without exercising an option for pay fixation from the date of his next increment. Consequently, his pay was fixed straightaway, which shifted his increment date and resulted in a lower basic pay under the 6th CPC as compared to his juniors and that because the juniors had exercised their options under FR22(I)(a)(1) to fix their pay on the date of their next annual increment in the time scale of pay of the lower post, their pay was fixed after giving them the upgradation under the ACP scheme.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this reasoning is legally untenable and arbitrary. He asserted that it is a settled principle of law, as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh Grewal & Anr. Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 94, that a senior employee cannot be paid a lesser salary than his juniors. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that any anomaly arising from incremental benefits must be rectified by stepping up the senior's pay to match the juniors’, regardless of the specific options exercised at the time of fixation.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the denial of pay parity is not only discriminatory but also unconstitutional, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the order of the Tribunal in OA No.3179/2017 titled Mahfooz Ali Vs. GNCTD d