- (1.) Leave granted. The respondent herein applied before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad for quashing an order of the Government rejecting his representation for stepping up his pay to be on par with the pay of his juniors N. S. Shah and P. Panjiara who were promoted to the cadre of Telegraph Traffic Service Group 'B'. The grievance of the respondent was that though he was promoted earlier and he was senior to the two persons mentioned above his pay was fixed at a lesser scale, namely, Rs. 2000-3500 whereas the pay of the said persons was fixed on a higher scale.
(2.) The Tribunal accepted the contention of the respondent and held that he is entitled to get his pay stepped up to be on par with that of P. Panjiara who was his junior. As regards Shah, the Tribunal held that the respondent had not made a representation to the Government and therefore, he could not seek stepping up of his pay on par with Shah. However, the respondent is satisfied with the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has limited the relief of stepping up for a period of three years prior to the filing of his application before it as a contention was raised that his application was filed four years after his junior P. Panjiara was promoted.
(3.) The judgment of the Tribunal is assailed by the appellant on the ground that principle of stepping up will not apply in the case where junior had been promoted earlier to a higher post on ad hoc basis and on account of such ad hoc promotion the junior got his pay fixed at a higher scale. In support of this contention reliance is placed by the appellant on a judgment of this Court in Union of India v. R. Swaminathan, (1997) 7 SCC 690 : (1997 AIR SCW 3659). A Bench of three Judges considered F.R. 22(1) and also the Government office memorandum dated 4-11-93 which sets out various instances where stepping up of pay cannot be done. The Bench pointed out that in that case the higher pay was fixed for the juniors not because of any promotion under FR 22 but because of an earlier ad hoc promotions given to the juniors for certain periods. The following observation of the Bench will be relevant (Paras 11 and 12 of AIR) : "The memorandum makes it clear that in such instances a junior drawing more pay than his senior will not constitute an anomaly and, therefore, stepping up of pay will not be admissible. The increased pay drawn by a junior because of ad hoc officiating or regular service rendered by him in the higher post for periods earlier than the senior is not an anomaly because pay does not depend on seniority alone nor is seniority alone a criterion for stepping up of pay. The aggrieved employees have contended with some justification that local officiating promotions with in a Circle have resulted in their being deprived of a chance to officiate in the higher post, if such chance of officiation arises in a different circle. They have submitted that since there is all-India seniority for regular promotions, this all-India seniority must prevail even while making local officiating appointments within any Circle. The question is basically of administrative exigency and the difficulty that the administration may face if even short-term vacancies have to be filled on the basis of all-India seniority by calling a person who may be stationed in a different circle in a region remote from the region where the vacancy arises, and that too for a short duration. This is essentially a matter of administrative policy. But the only justification for local promotions is their short duration. If such vacancy is of a long duration there is no administrative reason for not following the all-India seniority. Most of the grievances of the employees will be met if proper norms are laid down for making local officiating promotions. One thing, however, is clear. Neither the seniority nor the regular promotion of these employees is affected by such officiating local arrangements. The employees who have not officiated in the higher post earlier, however, will not get the benefit of the proviso to Fundamental Rule 22.";