it2025_00521 — Senior Assistants / PAs of CCS / CSSS promoted prior to 1-1-2006 and drawing less pay than Assistants promoted after 1-1-2006 are eligible for stepping up of pay on par with their juniors. Applicability of Note 10 below Rule 7 of CCS (RP) Rules 2008 distinguished

Senior Assistants / PAs of CCS / CSSS promoted prior to 1-1-2006 and drawing less pay than Assistants promoted after 1-1-2006 are eligible for stepping up of pay on par with their juniors. Applicability of

Note 10 below Rule 7 of CCS (RP) Rules 2008 distinguished — The applicant's case concerns an employee who was promoted to Assistant, Grade I in 2001 but subsequently earns less than her junior due to a change in grade pay rules. She argues that this is an ano... — Facts: The Applicant was initially appointed as Assistant, Grade-V (now Assistant Grade-III – Stores and Purchase) on 17-11-1969. She was promoted to Assistant Grade IV (now Assistant Grade II) through DPC and later appointed as Assistant, Grade I (General) on 21-3-2001 through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). The grievance of the Applicant is that, her juniors Mr. Dharshan Singh and Mr. M. Rajendran promoted to Assistant, Grade I (General) through DPC in February 2006, have had their pay fixed at ₹ 13,860 with Grade Pay of ₹ 4,600 in PB-2 (pre-revised scale of ₹ 6,500-10,500 further upgraded to ₹ 7,450-11,500), whereas she is getting lesser pay. The Applicant therefore made several representations which were forwarded to the 2nd Respondent. It was stated by the Respondents on 8-7-2016 that they awaited further clarification. The Applicant filed O.A. No. 1362 of 2016 for stepping up pay on par with her juniors. But her request was rejected on 23-1-2017 and aggrieved by the same, she filed the present OA. The Respondents contended that the Applicant's request to have her pay stepped up on par with her junior, Mr. Darshan Singh, is not permissible. They emphasized that Mr. Singh was in the General cadre, whereas the Applicant was in the Purchase cadre in the feeder grade. According to policy, seniority or juniority cannot be compared between different feeder grade cadres. They further stated that the conditions specified in Clauses (1) and

(c) of

Note 10 under Rule 7 of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 were not met in this case. Therefore, the pay of the Applicant cannot be stepped up at par with Mr. Darshan Singh as it was against the rules in force and the Respondents prayed that the OA may be dismissed. The Applicant has filed a rejoinder and further submits that after her promotion as Assistant (G) Grade-I in 2001, she was drawing more pay than Shri Darshan Singh as on 1-1-2006. The disparity arose only after the grade pay was upgraded from ₹ 4,200 to ₹ 4,600, which led seniors in the pre-revised scale to draw less than juniors. The Applicant also submitted that in the year 2010, the Department of Expenditure allowed as a one-time measure stepping up of pay for such anomalies and several CSIR units applied it even when conditions under

Note 10, Rule 7 of CCS (RP) Rules 2008 were not met. The Applicant referred to multiple cases like that of Ms. Reena Pant, Shri K.P. Krishnan, Shri Sanjay Roy, and Shri M. Kannan, where the Department of Expenditure allowed stepping up of pay of the Senior Assistant who were promoted before 1-1-2006 on par with their juniors as a one time measure. The Applicant emphasized her seniority (No. 76) over Shri Darshan Singh (No. 231) and submitted that even direct recruits have received stepping up of pay and therefore denial in her case amounted to discrimination. The Respondents, in their reply to the rejoinder, denied the Applicant's claims and relied on CSIR communication No. 5-1(90)/2010-PD, dated 17-9-2019. They contended that stepping up of pay cannot be allowed across different cadres as it violates the condition

(a) of

Note 10 under Rule 7 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 and any wrong fixation must be corrected with recovery of excess payment. They emphasized that, unlike the CSS where promotions are based on a common seniority list, CSIR maintains separate seniority lists for General, S&P, and F&A cadres, making inter-cadre comparison invalid. The LDCE provision, they argued, is only for promotion and not for other purposes. The Applicant filed an additional reply and contended that as per DoPT OM, dated 22-12-2006 and

Note 10 under Rule 7 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, stepping up of pay is admissible to Senior Assistants / PAs of CSS / CSSS promoted prior to 1-1-2006 and drawing less pay than the Assistants / PAs of CSC / CSSS promoted after 1-1-2006. The Applicant further argued that CSIR is wrongly applying its Letter No. 5-1(90)2010-PD, dated 17-9-2019 to her case, which is not relevant since she was promoted on 21-3-2001. The Applicant emphasized that DoPT recognizes only one designation, "Assistant, Grade I," without sub-categorization (General, Finance and Accounts, Stores and Purchase) as done in CSIR and hence the DoP&T Rules cannot be selectively applied. She further pointed out that CSIR and SERC have themselves granted stepping up of pay to staff from different feeder grades, but in her case, the same has been denied, amounting to discrimination. She therefore prayed for allowing the OA.