SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Guj) 951

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.
Nareshkumar Karshanbhai Bavarava & Ors. – Petitioners 
Versus 
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 3103 of 2026
Decided On : 13-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. R.D. Kinariwala.
For the Respondents: Mr Parth Patel, AGP

The principle of stepping up serves to eliminate salary anomalies where senior employees receive lower pay than their juniors in the same cadre. State authorities are mandated to ensure pay parity when revised wage structures result in juniors receiving higher basic pay than their seniors, preventing discriminatory treatment.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Service Law - Pay fixation - Principle of stepping up - Salary anomaly - Seniority - Discrimination in pay - When juniors appointed to a cadre after the implementation of revised pay scales receive higher basic pay than their seniors appointed earlier, such discrepancy creates a patent anomaly. The principle of stepping up is applied to remove this dissatisfaction and ensure that the pay of senior employees is brought to par with that of their juniors to maintain parity in the same cadre. (Paras 2, 5, 21, 22)

(B) Service Law - Principle of equal pay for equal work - Doctrine of equality - Where senior and junior employees belong to the same cadre and perform identical duties, a senior employee drawing a lower salary than a junior is violative of equality principles. Rectification is necessary to ensure fairness and prevent systemic discrimination in salary structures. (Paras 13, 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were appointed as employees prior to the implementation of new pay commission revision rules. Following a government resolution that revised entry-level pay for new recruits on or after a specific date, employees appointed later were placed in a higher pay bracket than the petitioners. This resulted in a salary anomaly where senior employees, despite having longer service, were drawing a lower basic salary than their juniors in the same cadre.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the existing pay anomaly resulted in discrimination against senior employees. Relying on settled legal principles regarding the stepping up of pay to resolve such anomalies, the court held that the respondent authority was obligated to remove the disparity by aligning the pay of the senior employees with that of their juniors. The court determined that the impugned resolution failed to account for those already in service, thus necessitating judicial intervention to ensure pay equity.

Issues: The primary issue was whether senior employees are entitled to the stepping up of their pay scales to match the basic pay of their juniors who were appointed later but placed in a higher pay bracket due to revised pay fixation rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The principle of stepping up is a recognized compensatory mechanism to maintain parity between seniors and juniors within the same cadre. When a junior employee draws higher pay due to revised fixation policies, the senior employee’s pay must be adjusted upwards, effectively eliminating the discriminatory anomaly and ensuring compliance with the fundamental principle of equality in service conditions.

Result: Petition allowed. The authorities were directed to step up the pay of the petitioners to match that of their juniors, with arrears and consequential benefits to be paid within a specified period.

Table of Content
1. procedural context and factual background regarding pay scale disparity between seniors and juniors. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. application of existing legal precedent to rectify pay anomalies for senior employees. (Para 4 , 5)
3. the doctrine of 'stepping up' pay to eliminate discrimination between senior and junior staff in the same cadre. (Para 6)
4. final order directing pay fixation and disbursement of arrears based on the principle of parity. (Para 7)

ORDER :

NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Parth Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent State.

2. The petitioners by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pray for a direction that the pay of the petitioners be put at par with their juniors who are appointed or or after 01.01.2006 and to place the petitioners at the stage of Rs.10810 in the pay band of Rs.9300-34800 (PB2) with effect from 01.01.2006.

3. The petitioners were appointed on different dates as a Shikshan Sahayaks and placed on a fixed salary of Rs.4500 for a period of five years. As on August 2005, the petitioners were in the pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000. By the coming into force of the 6th Pay Commission, their pay-scale came to be revised and implemented with effect from 01.01.2006 and they were placed in the pay-scale of Rs.9300-34800 with the grade pay of Rs.4200. Thereafter, the State through the Finance Department came out with a resolution dated 14.09.2011 by which the entry level pay was revised with effect from 01.01.2006. As per the said government resolution, the basic pay was fixed at Rs.10810 with grade pay of Rs 4400 as a result of which employees junior to the petitioners got more basic pay than the petitioners.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Kinariwala appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that an identical issue came up for consideration before this court in Special Civil Application No. 12207 of 2014 and this Court allowed the petition and directed the authority to step up the pay of the petitioners therein by placing them at the pay band with arrears from 01.01.2006 and to pay periodical rise and all consequential benefits.

5. Admittedly, when it is a matter of record that the petitioners were appointed much prior to the other employees junior to the present petitioners, the essential ingredient of stepping up of pay' in favour of the petitioners who were otherwise drawing less pay in the basic of Rs.10230 would apply.

6. This Court in Special Civil Application No. 12207 of 2014 and allied matters has considered the very issue and observed accordingly:-

"20. Here in the present case also, the petitioners were appointed prior to January 01,2006 and their juniors were appointed on or after January 01, 2006, however, the pay in pay band of the juniors of the petitioners was fixed higher than that of the present petitioners and, thus, there is apparent anomaly in the salary being paid to the petitioners as against their juniors.

21. So far as the issue in question is concerned, it depends upon the applicability of the principle of stepping up. Admittedly, the petitioners had been appointed earlier to the category of Private Secretary, Grade-I, and some of their juniors got their pay fixed at a higher level than the petitioners on implementation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission in view of Rules, 2009. To remove the anomaly of a Government servent promoted or appointed to a higher post earlier drawing a lower rate of pay in that post than another Government servant junior to him in the lower grade and promoted or appointed subsequently to the higher post, the principle of stepping up of the pay is applied. In such cases the pay of the senior officer in the higher post is required to be stepped up to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for the junior officer in that higher post. The stepping up is required to be done with effect from the date of promotion or appointment of the junior of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top