it2025_00518 — Stepping up of pay for a second time on par with junior - The GOI instructions at Serial No. 20 after FR 22 do not bar the cases where the anomaly in pay is due to grant of incentive increment after implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations for pay revision

Stepping up of pay for a second time on par with junior - The GOI instructions at Serial No. 20 after FR 22 do not bar the cases where the anomaly in pay is due to grant of incentive increment after implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations for pay revision — The Applicant, who was promoted as Income Tax Officer, is seeking parity in pay with juniors who were promoted ahead due to a promotion skip between Stenographer, Grade-I and Inspector of Income Tax.... — Facts: The Applicant was initially appointed as Stenographer, Ordinary Grade (OG) in the Income Tax Department which was re-designated as Stenographer; Grade-III. Thereafter, the Applicant was promoted as Stenographer, Grade-II with effect from 29-9-1995. While serving as Stenographer, Grade-II, the Applicant qualified in the departmental examination for Inspector of Income Tax and came to be promoted on 25-6-2001 as and when vacancy became available. The Applicant then appeared in the departmental examination for Income Tax Officers and the Applicant was promoted as Income Tax Officer with effect from 21-12-2006 and she retired from the said post on 30-11-2017 on attaining the age of superannuation. The Applicant further submitted that Stenographer, Grade-III is a feeder cadre post for promotion to the post of Stenographer, Grade-II and that both Stenographer, Grade-I and II are permitted to appear for the departmental examination for the post of Inspector of Income Tax. The Applicant further states that some of her juniors viz. Shri Sunder Nair and Smt. Kusum Surendran, who had not cleared this departmental examination, were promoted as Stenographer, Grade-I on 26-7-2001 thereafter they came to be promoted as Income Tax Inspector on 29-11-2001 i.e. almost 5 months after the Applicant had been promoted as Inspector of Income Tax. The grievance of the Applicant is that while the Applicant's basic pay was fixed at ₹ 6,725, the basic pay of the juniors was fixed at &₹ 6,900 due to the reason that her juniors were given one promotion to the post of Stenographer, Grade-I in between. The Applicant is seeking stepping up of pay on par with the above mentioned juniors and relied upon the Judgment of this Tribunal, dated 20-4-2023 in O.A. No. 501 of 2021 (Gyanendu Shekhar and others v. Union of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi) wherein similar issue has been dealt with and stepping up of pay has been allowed. In a similar issue, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 49498 of 2019 decided on 23-2-2021 [Union of India, M/o. Finance and another v. Gautam Kumar and others] was pleased to uphold the decision of the Bengaluru Bench of the Tribunal allowing the stepping up of pay in similar circumstances. On the other hand, the Respondents contended that the Applicant's pay was earlier stepped up on par with her Junior, Smt. Nivedita N. Kulkarni and that even if the anomaly as stated by the Applicant exists, even then, the seeking stepping up of pay for the second time on par with a different junior is not permissible as per FR 22 sub-rule 20.