Senior Entitled To Stepping Up Of Pay If Junior In Same Cadre & Pay Scale Draws Higher Salary: Calcutta HC

Background Facts

The Petitioner and a Private Respondent were appointed as Junior Draftsman in the same department. The Petitioner joined in 1976 and the Respondent in 1977. The Petitioner was senior and often drew equal or higher pay compared to his junior. However, in 1982, the Private Respondent was given a promotion to an ex-cadre post of Junior Research Assistant.

This post had a higher pay scale that was later revised retrospectively. Upon reversion to the substantive post in 1985, this higher pay was not protected. Now both employees again drew identical salaries. Later, both were promoted to Draftsman. In 1988, they were recruited as Field Officers on the same day.

The department fixed the Private Respondent's pay at a higher stage (Rs. 1760) than the Petitioner's (Rs. 1640). The department took into account the higher pay drawn years earlier during the ex-cadre period.

Aggrieved by this disparity, the Petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking stepping up of pay. However, the Tribunal refused it. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court.

It was contended by the petitioner that he was senior to the Private Respondent from the starting and also, he had drawn higher pay in the same scales at every stage of their careers. But the department fixed the Private Respondent's pay at a higher stage upon their appointment as Field Officers. It was contended that before appointment as Field Officer, both the petitioner and the private respondent were in the same cadre and pay scale.

It was further submitted that if the junior has drawn more pay, the principle of stepping up of pay must have been applied. The petitioner claimed that he was entitled for stepping up of pay because junior was drawing more pay and just before appointment as Field Officer, both were in the same pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300.

On the other hand, it was argued by the department that the Private Respondent had drawn higher pay during his period as Junior Research Assistant. Further this benefit was protected at the time of his direct recruitment as Field Officer. The department contended that the Petitioner had failed to file the seniority list to substantiate his claim of being senior.

Findings of the Court

Relying upon the detailed comparative chart, it was found by the Division Bench that the Petitioner had been senior to the Private Respondent throughout their service journey. It was noted that the Private Respondent had higher pay at the time of direct recruitment due to the pay drawn during his period as Junior Research Assistant. This benefit was never protected upon his reversion to the substantive post.

Relying on the case of Commissioner & Secy. to Govt. of Haryana vs. Ram Sarup Ganda, it was observed by the Court that the doctrine of stepping up of pay applies when a senior and a junior are in the same cadre, same post, and same pay scale, and the junior is drawing higher pay.

It was noted by the Division Bench that both employees were appointed as Field Officers on the same day, belonged to the same cadre. The Petitioner had drawn equal or higher pay in the feeder post of Draftsman before appointment as Field Officers.

It was held that the petitioner had drawn more pay in the next below post of Draftsman than the private respondent, therefore he was entitled to pay parity. It was further held that the private respondent's brief period in an ex-cadre post could not be a valid ground to extend the pay disparity permanently, when that benefit had not been protected at the time of reversion.

With the aforesaid observations, the Tribunal's order was set aside by the Division Bench. The respondents were directed to step up the petitioner's pay on the post of Field Officer at par with the private respondent and grant all consequential benefits within 90 days.

Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : P.K. Chattopadhyay vs. Union of India & Ors.

Case No. : C.O.C.T. 2 of 2013

Counsel for the Petitioner : Debjani Sengupta, Paulomi Ghosh

Counsel for the Respondents : Rabi Prosad Mookherjee, Piyash Choudhury