http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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.