it2025_00527 — Applicant herein is drawing lesser pay than his junior Shri Dinesh Kumar Baidya which is not permissible. Respondents of Ministry of Home Affairs are directed to grant the Applicant herein pay at par with his junior, Shri Dinesh Kumar Baidya within one month on receipt of this judgment

IT Rules

Applicant herein is drawing lesser pay than his junior Shri Dinesh Kumar Baidya which is not permissible. Respondents of Ministry of Home Affairs are directed to grant the Applicant herein pay at par with his junior, Shri Dinesh Kumar Baidya within one month on receipt of this judgment — This chunk is from an order in a case (O.A. No. 041/00178 of 2018) concerning a dispute about a lower-paid employee receiving pay at par with his junior, Shri Dinesh Kumar Baidya, within the Ministry... — Facts: Applicant herein, was appointed initially as Stenographer Grade III on 11-2-1993 under R-3, Deputy Director / E of Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau (SIB). Thereafter, he was promoted and presently is working as Personal Assistant on 10-1-2008 without any fixation. The seniority list of Stenographers are brought out. It is stated that one Shri Dinesh Kumar Baidya, junior to the Applicant is drawing more pay of ₹ 13,860 + GP of ₹ 4,600 with effect from 1-7-2006 vide Order, dated 17-12-2012. Applicant contends that his pay is less than his junior came to his notice belatedly. Hence Applicant submitted a representation to step up his pay at par with his junior. But his prayer was rejected by the Impugned Order, dated 11-1-2017 (A-1) on the ground that his pay was earlier stepped up at par with his junior Shri. Biju Narayan Brahma, PA and further stepping up is not tenable under
Note 10 of Rule 7 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. On the above lines, the reply is filed by Respondents. Tribunal heard both sides and other officials of Respondent organization. In support of his case, Applicant relied on two decisions namely, 2002 (3) ATJ511 and O.A. No. 60/01083/2015. Tribunal noted the submission of Applicant who is senior to Shri Dinesh Kumar Baidya whose pay of 6th CPC ₹ 13,860 + Grade Pay of ₹ 4,600 is with effect from 1-7-2006 whereas the Applicant's pay was fixed as ₹ 11,020 + GP of ₹ 4,600 with effect from 1-7-2016. That was accepted by Respondents. Applicant is senior to Shri Dinesh Kumar Baidya is also accepted by Respondents. But Respondents are harping on the provision contained in
Note 10 of Rule 7 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. The essence of the note is that, stepping up of pay is permissible only on one occasion. If a senior get his pay stepped up at par with one junior to him, then further stepping up is not permissible. As the pay of the Applicant's pay had been already upgraded at par with one Shri Biju Narayan Brahma, further stepping up of pay of the Applicant is not permissible. In H.S. Umesh Prasad and another v Karnataka Electricity Board and another [ 2002 (3) ATJ 511 ] wherein it was held that anomaly in pay cannot persist and must be removed. Directed to equalize the pay of senior to that of his junior. Similar Order to step up pay and payment only from the date of filing of that OA. Similar order was given in the case of Bishambar Das and others v. Union of India [ O.A. No. 060/01083/2015 ].

IT Rules

Applicant herein is drawing lesser pay than his junior Shri Dinesh Kumar Baidya which is not permissible. Respondents of Ministry of Home Affairs are directed to grant the Applicant herein pay at par with his junior, Shri Dinesh Kumar Baidya within one month on receipt of this judgment — This chunk is from an order in a case (O.A. No. 041/00178 of 2018) concerning a dispute about a lower-paid employee receiving pay at par with his junior, Shri Dinesh Kumar Baidya, within the Ministry... — Facts: Applicant herein, was appointed initially as Stenographer Grade III on 11-2-1993 under R-3, Deputy Director / E of Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau (SIB). Thereafter, he was promoted and presently is working as Personal Assistant on 10-1-2008 without any fixation. The seniority list of Stenographers are brought out. It is stated that one Shri Dinesh Kumar Baidya, junior to the Applicant is drawing more pay of ₹ 13,860 + GP of ₹ 4,600 with effect from 1-7-2006 vide Order, dated 17-12-2012. Applicant contends that his pay is less than his junior came to his notice belatedly. Hence Applicant submitted a representation to step up his pay at par with his junior. But his prayer was rejected by the Impugned Order, dated 11-1-2017 (A-1) on the ground that his pay was earlier stepped up at par with his junior Shri. Biju Narayan Brahma, PA and further stepping up is not tenable under
Note 10 of Rule 7 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. On the above lines, the reply is filed by Respondents. Tribunal heard both sides and other officials of Respondent organization. In support of his case, Applicant relied on two decisions namely, 2002 (3) ATJ511 and O.A. No. 60/01083/2015. Tribunal noted the submission of Applicant who is senior to Shri Dinesh Kumar Baidya whose pay of 6th CPC ₹ 13,860 + Grade Pay of ₹ 4,600 is with effect from 1-7-2006 whereas the Applicant's pay was fixed as ₹ 11,020 + GP of ₹ 4,600 with effect from 1-7-2016. That was accepted by Respondents. Applicant is senior to Shri Dinesh Kumar Baidya is also accepted by Respondents. But Respondents are harping on the provision contained in
Note 10 of Rule 7 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. The essence of the note is that, stepping up of pay is permissible only on one occasion. If a senior get his pay stepped up at par with one junior to him, then further stepping up is not permissible. As the pay of the Applicant's pay had been already upgraded at par with one Shri Biju Narayan Brahma, further stepping up of pay of the Applicant is not permissible. In H.S. Umesh Prasad and another v Karnataka Electricity Board and another [ 2002 (3) ATJ 511 ] wherein it was held that anomaly in pay cannot persist and must be removed. Directed to equalize the pay of senior to that of his junior. Similar Order to step up pay and payment only from the date of filing of that OA. Similar order was given in the case of Bishambar Das and others v. Union of India [ O.A. No. 060/01083/2015 ].

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text