In a petition filed before the Delhi High Court to challenge an order dated 25-05-2023 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, whereby the O.A. filed by the respondent was allowed, a Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain held that the CAT had erred in holding that the respondent was entitled to a step-up in his pay and set aside the impugned orders.
By way of the present petition, the petitioners also challenged an order dated 28-11-2023, by which the CAT dismissed their review application against the order dated 25-05-2023.
On 29-04-1986, the respondent was appointed as an Auditor in the Controller of Defence Accounts Department through an exam by the Staff Selection Committee. In 1992, he was promoted to Senior Auditor, and on 06-08-2001, he was promoted to Section Officer (A) before being promoted to Assistant Accounts Officer.
The respondent submitted before the CAT that one of his juniors had been drawing a higher salary than him, even though he was promoted to the post of Section Officer (A) after the respondent’s promotion to the said post. The petitioners rejected the respondent’s representation in this regard. Thereafter, the Tribunal allowed the respondent’s O.A. and held that the petitioners should have stepped up the respondent’s pay from the date of his promotion to the said post, as was done for his junior.
The petitioners contended that the Tribunal failed to note that the O.A. was barred by limitation, as it was filed 17 years after the dispute arose. It was further highlighted that the said junior was appointed 14 years prior to the respondent’s appointment as Auditor.
The Court noted that the issue to be considered was whether the respondent’s pay was entitled to be stepped up to par with that of his junior, who was promoted after the respondent but drew a higher salary. The Court perused the career graphs of the respondent and his junior and found it evident that the respondent was appointed 14 years after the junior. It was found that the respondent became senior to him only in 2002, when he was promoted to the post of Section Officer (A).
It was noted that the junior of the respondent received a higher salary due to a grant of financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. The Court opined that the CAT had erred in allowing the O.A., while holding that the respondent was entitled to an increase in pay. The Court stated that the exceptions mentioned in Note 10 appended to Rule 7 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, were clearly applicable to the respondent.
Further, the Court said that the CAT had relied on an office memorandum dated 26-10-2018 to extend the benefit of the stepping up of pay to the respondent, but had failed to appreciate the effect of Clauses 3(e) and 3(f).
Thus, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned orders while holding that the respondent was not entitled to a step-up in his pay.
Appearances:
For Petitioners – Mr. Anshuman, Mr. Kanav Vir Singh
For Respondent – Party-in-person
