PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: SUSHIL KUMAR PAUL & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/04/1998 BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, S.P. KURDUKAR. ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 1998
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.T. Nanavati
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.P. Kurdukar
P.P. Malhotra, Sr.Adv., Rajiv Nanda, Arvind Kumar Sharma,
Ms. Sushma Suri, Advs. with him for the appellants.
Ms. Sarla Chandra, Adv. for the Respondents.
J U D G M E N T
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
NANAVATI . J.
Delay condoned.
Special leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The only question which arises for consideration in
these appeals is whether the Central Administrative Tribunal
was right in allowing the application of the respondents
directing the appellants to step up their pay so as to make
it at par with the pay of B.C. Mishra who was their junior
but getting a higher pay.
It is held by the Tribunal that the respondents and
Mishra belonged to the same cadre and their pay scales were
also the same in the lower posts and, therefore, they are
entitled to the benefit of stepping up . But, what the
Tribunal has failed to take into consideration is the
Circular dated 4.11.1993 issued by the Government of India,
Department of Personnel & Training which clearly provides
that the anomaly for granting benefit of stepping up of pay
should be directly as a result of the application of
fundamental rule 22-C and that if a junior officer draws a
higher pay in the lower post either because of advance
increments or on any other account then the provision of
stepping up would not apply in such a case. Moreover in
paragraph 2(c) of the Circular it is, further, provided that
if a senior joins the higher post, later than the junior,
for whatsoever reason, whereby he draws less pay than the
junior, in such a case senior cannot, claim stepping up of
pay at per with the junior.
In this case what had happened was that the respondents
and Mishra were appointed as typists clerks on different
dates but were promoted to the post of Welfare Inspector
Grade -III on the same date. Mishra was promoted to Grade
II earlier than the respondents on ad hoc basis. He was
promoted as Welfare Inspector Grade II on 1.2.1981 on ad hoc
basis and worked continuously on the higher post upto 1.1.84
on which date the two respondents and Mishra were promoted
as Welfare Inspectors Grade II on regular basis. At that
time he was getting a higher pay than the respondents
because of his earlier ad hoc promotion. Mishra was again
promoted as Welfare Inspector Grade I on ad hoc basis and
worked on that post continuously from 28.7.86 to 13.1.93.
On 13.1.93 the respondents and Mishra were promoted to Grade
I on regular basis. On that date also Mishra was getting a
higher pay because of his ad hoc promotion as Welfare
Inspector Grade I. It was for that reason that Mishra, even
though was a junior, was getting more pay than the
respondents. In view of these facts, the Circular governing
stepping up of pay issued by the Railway Board and the law
laid down by this Court in Union of India & Others Vs. O.P.
Saxena ( 1997 (6) SCC 360 ) the respondents were not
entitled to the benefit of stepping up. The Tribunal, thus
committed an error in granting that benefit to the
respondents. We , therefore, allow these appeals and set
aside the impugned orders of the Tribunal.
No order as to costs.