Stepping up of senior's pay denied due to different cadres, no FR 22 anomaly, diverse promotions/ACP.

By Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)

The present Original Application has been filed by eight applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:

“(a) direct the respondents to pay the applicants G.P. Rs.4600/- from the date when juniors to the applicants were given;

(b) pass any other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the applicant.”

2. Factual Matrix

2.1 The present applicants are claiming that they were senior to Respondent No. 4, namely Shri Ranvir Singh, Record Supplier with the respondents. The applicants have not furnished, in their pleadings, the copies of all the initial appointment letters. They have only furnished the initial appointment letter of Applicant No.1 (Annexure- 2) according to which he was appointed on 18.05.1979 as Messenger boy. However, from the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.1-3, the following picture emerges regarding the initial appointment and subsequent movement in hierarchy of service for all applicants which are given in the following Table:

2.2 As the respondent Nos.1-3 granted higher Grade pay of Rs.4600 w.e.f. 11.06.2013 to similarly placed employees and denied the same benefits to the applicants, they represented to these Respondents on 02.02.2015. As the official respondents did not respond to the representation, they have approached this Tribunal in the present OA seeking the aforementioned relief.

3. Notices were issued to the respondents and they have filed their counter reply, to which the applicants have also filed their rejoinder.

4. Submission by the learned counsel for the Applicants 4.1 The learned counsel for the applicants states that the present applicants are seniors to the Respondent No.4 and the respondents have granted Grade pay of Rs.4600 w.e.f. 11.06.2013. As they are seniors to Sh. Ranvir Singh, Respondent No.4, their pay should be stepped up to bring it at par with their juniors. Moreover, the Official respondents have reviewed the Grade Pay of the Respondent No.4, consequent upon the placement of all erstwhile Group ‘D’ employees into the category of Group ‘C’, they have reviewed the Grade Pay of Ranvir Singh accordingly and granted him Grade pay of Rs.4600 from 11.06.2013. As Ranvir Singh was junior to the present applicants, they also deserve to get same upgraded grade pay of Rs.4600. They have given the comparative picture of Applicant No.1 vis-a-vis Respondent No.4, their alleged junior on Page 46-47 of the OA.

5. Submission by Learned Counsel for the Respondents

5.1 The learned counsel for the official respondent draws attention of the Tribunal to the comparative picture of the applicant No.1 vis-a-vis Respondent No.4 as furnished by the Respondent No.1-3 in their counter affidavit filed on 29.09.2025. From the comparative picture, it is evident that all the applicants as well as Respondent No.4 joined service of the official respondents on various dates and with various pay scales to start with. All of them moved to various promoted posts and earned financial upgradations on various dates. Hence, the principle of stepping up of pay of the seniors as compared to any alleged junior is not permissible for such employees having diverse grades, cadres, pay scales and promotions and financial upgradations under ACP and MACP Schemes. He referred to the DO&PT OM dated 09.08.1999 Annexure-I point no.8 (regarding the ACP Scheme) which states:

“The financial upgradation under the ACP scheme shall be purely personal to the employee and shall have no relevance to his seniority position. As such, there shall be no additional financial upgradation for the s