204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1) CWP-31722-2019 (O&M)

Date of decision: 28.11.2025 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS JASWANT KAUR AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS

2) CWP-32681-2019(O&M)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS GURVINDER PAL SINGH AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Ashish Rawal, Sr. Panel Counsel for the petitioner(s).

Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.S.Chadha, Advocate for the respondents.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)

1. In the present appeals, the challenge is to the order dated 13.07.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in OA No. 060-00556/2017 titled Jaswant Kaur & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. vide which, order dated 20.10.2016 passed by the petitioners-UOI has been set aside and petitioner has been directed to consider the claim of the respondents No.1 to 8 for fixation of their pay at par with their juniors and order dated 17.07.2019 (Annexure P2), whereby Review Application bearing RA No.060/00016/2019 filed by the petitioners in aforesaid OA has been dismissed by the learned tribunal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the grant of benefit in favour of the respondents by the learned Tribunal is incorrect as, the junior of the respondents were granted the higher pay scale, keeping in view the revised higher pay scale as given under the 6^th Pay Commission, hence, an anomaly only arose keeping in view the financial upgradation to be granted under 5^th Pay Commission and 6^th Pay Commission and therefore, the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that once in the 6^th pay commission, upon the grant of the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS), a higher salary was envisaged, the benefit could not have been granted to the respondents of stepping-up of their pay equivalent to the juniors.

3. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that much water has flown after the passing of the judgment dated 17.07.2019 impugned in the present writ petition. Learned Senior counsel further submits that even if on the basis of the pay scale provided under the 5^th Pay Commission or the 6^th Pay Commission, the financial upgradation has been given on account of ACPS, but under any circumstances, once the record of the senior is good, merely keeping in view the date of grant of ACP of the junior arose after the revision of the pay scale by the 6^th Pay Commission, the seniors cannot be granted lesser salary than the junior and the step-up of pay has to be granted. 4.

Learned Senior counsel further submits that in the present case, the respondents are at better footing as, the juniors who are not even the part of the cadre of the senior Supervisor, but only became part of the said cadre upon merger of the cadre of junior Supervisor with senior Supervisor, such junior Supervisors are getting a higher pay than the original senior Supervisors which has been noticed by the learned Tribunal. Hence, the grant of benefit to the senior Supervisors of stepping-up of their pay equivalent to their juniors is perfectly valid.

5. Learned Senior counsel further submits that after the judgment was passed in the present case, another employee namely, Sehdev Paswan also approached this Court to grant the same relief as granted to the respondents herein. The said Sehdev Paswan was junior to the respondents in the cadre of the senior Supervisor and was allowed the same benefit keeping in view the order passed by the learned Tribunal in the case of the respondents dated 17.07.2019, which is clear from the order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 02.05.2019 passed in OA No. 060-976/2017. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the said order was challenged by the Union of India before this Court and the writ petition filed in CWP-29312-2019 by the Union of India in case of Sehdev Paswan was dismis