The High Court of Delhi has set aside an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, which had directed the Union of India to step up the pay of a senior employee to match that of his junior. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain, ruled that a senior employee is not entitled to stepping up of pay if the junior’s higher pay arises from a longer length of service and financial upgradations granted in the lower post.
The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging the Tribunal’s order dated May 25, 2023. The legal issue centered on whether a senior employee, promoted to a higher post earlier than his junior, is entitled to pay parity when the junior draws a higher salary due to significantly longer service and Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefits in the feeder cadre. The Court held that such anomalies do not warrant stepping up of pay under the relevant rules and Office Memorandums (O.M.).
Background of the Dispute
The respondent, Durga Dutt Saini, was appointed as an Auditor on April 29, 1986. He was promoted to Senior Auditor in 1992 and subsequently to the post of Section Officer (A) [SO(A)] on August 6, 2001, through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination.
The comparator junior, Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, joined service on April 11, 1972—more than 14 years prior to the respondent. Mr. Singh was promoted to the post of SO(A) on January 9, 2002, after the respondent. However, Mr. Singh was drawing a higher salary (Rs. 7,500/-) compared to the respondent (Rs. 6,900/-) at the time of the latter’s promotion.
Aggrieved by this disparity, the respondent approached the Tribunal in 2019. The Tribunal allowed the Original Application (O.A.), directing the Union of India to fix the respondent’s salary at par with Mr. Singh from the date of his promotion. The petitioners’ review application was also dismissed by the Tribunal on November 28, 2023.
Arguments of the Parties
Union of India (Petitioners): Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the O.A. was barred by limitation, having been filed 17 years after the alleged anomaly arose in 2002. On merits, the counsel submitted that Mr. Singh had joined service 14 years before the respondent and had received more increments.
The petitioners contended that Mr. Singh was already in a higher pay scale from August 9, 1999, following his second financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme after completing 24 years of service. It was argued that “the anomaly in question must be a direct result of the application of Fundamental Rule (FR) 22-C in order for stepping up of pay to apply.” Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India & Anr. v. R. Swaminathan & Ors. (1997) and Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) O.M. dated November 4, 1993.
Respondent (In Person): The respondent argued that the petition was belated and filed only due to contempt proceedings initiated for non-compliance. He relied on the decision of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in R. Sridharan and Ors. v. The Controller of Defence Accounts and Ors. (2002), asserting it covered the present matter. He further submitted that the DoPT O.M. dated October 26, 2018, mandates stepping up of pay for a senior government servant in a higher post to match that of a junior.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court examined the career graph of both employees. It noted that while the respondent became senior to Mr. Singh in the SO(A) grade on August 6, 2001, Mr. Singh had been appointed in 1972 and was drawing higher pay in the feeder cadre of Senior Auditor due to his length of service and ACP benefits.
Application of Pay Rules: The Bench referred to Note 10 to Rule 7 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, which provides exceptions to stepping up of pay. The rule states:
“If even in the lower post, the junior officer was drawing more pay in the pre-revised scale than the senior by virtue of any advance increments granted to him, provision of this Note need not be invoked to step up the pay of the senior officer.”
Interpretation of DoPT O.M. dated 26.10.2018: The Court observed that the Tribunal had relied on the 2018 O.M. but failed to appreciate Clause 3(e) and 3(f), which explicitly govern such situations. The Court quoted Clause 3(e):
“If a senior is appointed later than the junior in the lower post whereby he is in receipt of lesser pay than the junior, in such cases, also the senior cannot claim pay parity in the higher post if he draws less pay than his junior though he may have been promoted earlier to the higher post.”
The Court held that Mr. Singh drew higher pay “due to his length of service and being promoted to the feeder cadre post of Senior Auditor prior to the respondent herein and being his senior.”
Distinction from Previous Case: Regarding the respondent’s reliance on R. Sridharan, the Court clarified:
“The case of R. Sridharan (supra) was distinct in its facts inasmuch as therein the junior was drawing a lesser pay in the feeder cadre as compared to his senior.”
Decision
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in holding that the respondent was entitled to stepping up of pay. The Court stated:
“Therefore, even in terms of O.M. No.4/3/2017-Estt(Pay-I) dated 26.10.2018… the respondent was not entitled to a stepping up of pay only because Mr. Singh, though promoted later to the post of SO(A) was drawing a higher pay than the respondent.”
Regarding the issue of limitation raised by the petitioners, the Court observed that since the respondent was not entitled to the relief on merits, it was not necessary to adjudicate the question of limitation.
The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the Impugned Orders dated May 25, 2023, and November 28, 2023, passed by the Tribunal.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Shri Durga Dutt Saini
- Case Number: W.P.(C) 9312/2024
- Court: High Court of Delhi
- Coram: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain
- Date of Judgment: December 09, 2025
- Citation: 2025:DHC:11045-DB
