it2025_00530 — Pay of one Sri Viswanadham, Junior of the Applicant is higher than the Applicant. The benefit of the pay of the Applicant on par with her Junior, Shri Viswanadham is kept open which will be decided on receipt of Applicant's representation in this regard

Pay of one Sri Viswanadham, Junior of the Applicant is higher than the Applicant. The benefit of the pay of the Applicant on par with her Junior, Shri Viswanadham is kept open which will be decided on receipt of Applicant's representation in this regard — The given chunk is about an OA (Original Application) numbered 21/1392 of 2013, where an employee named B. Lalitha is contesting the pay discrepancy between her and her junior Sri Viswanadham in a Re... — Facts :Applicant selected and appointed as Storekeeper on 8-2-1991 under Administrative Officer, Research Centre, Imarat, Hyderabad rose to the position of Senior Store Assistant (C) on 1-1-2006. She states that one Sri Viswanadham, Junior to her in service and holding the post of Senior Store Assistant is drawing more pay than her and hence her pay should be stepped up. Pay of the Applicant was stepped up on par with Viswanadham. However, the pay of Applicant is reduced from 1-7-2013 without giving opportunity to the Applicant. Respondents by letter, dated 17-10-2013 informed the Applicant that she is not entitled to stepping up of her pay on par with Viswanadham. Her pay is stepped up erroneously and hence she was paid an excess of ₹ 65,651 which is to be recovered in six monthly installments. It is further said by Respondents that her pay has been stepped with that of one of her junior, Sri Bhaskar and the Applicant should compare her pay with that of Sri Bhasker and not with any other employee. The main contention of the applicant is that, her pay was reduced and recovery of excess payment is ordered without giving her any opportunity which is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. After hearing the Respondents, two issues arise (1) Whether the Applicant is entitled to draw pay on par with her junior, Sri Viswanadham and (2) recovery of ₹ 65,591 from Applicant's pay and allowances Respondents state that FR 22 (20) is not applicable in stepping up of pay of senior for second time in order to remove an anomaly in pay vis-a-vis same junior. That rule is reproduced. On hearing both sides, the Tribunal held: