Rajasthan High Court Confirms Stepping Up of Pay Where Juniors Draw Higher Salary Than Seniors

The Rajasthan High Court in Union of India Vs Income Tax Gazetted Officer Association has reaffirmed an important service law principle: where a senior officer ends up drawing a lower salary than a junior due to the manner in which advance increments are granted for passing departmental examinations, the senior is entitled to stepping up of pay to bring his or her emoluments on par with the junior.

The writ petition filed by the Union of India challenged an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (CAT), which had allowed the claim of stepping up of pay raised by respondent No.2 (an association of officers) and its members. The High Court declined to interfere and dismissed the writ petition, essentially aligning itself with earlier views adopted by the Karnataka High Court, the Delhi High Court and the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi.

Background of the Dispute

Grievance Raised Before the Tribunal

The controversy originated when the Income Tax Gazetted Officer Association approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur, through an Original Application. The association contended that:

  • Certain senior officers in the Income Tax Department had passed a departmental examination earlier and, as a result, had earned advance increments.
  • Later, their juniors also cleared the same departmental examination and were similarly granted advance increments.
  • Due to the application of pay rules and fitment, some juniors ended up drawing higher pay than their seniors, despite the seniors being ahead in the service hierarchy and having cleared the examination earlier in time.
  • The Department did not rectify this anomaly by stepping up the seniors’ pay to match that of the juniors.

The core claim was that the Department’s failure to grant stepping up of pay had led to an unjust and anomalous situation, contrary to accepted service jurisprudence on pay parity between seniors and juniors in the same cadre.

Reliance on Earlier Judicial Precedents

While arguing before the Tribunal, the association placed strong reliance on prior decisions where similarly placed employees had obtained relief:

  1. High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

    • Union of India & Anr. Vs. Gautam Kumar & Ors. (WP No.49498/2019 (S-CAT), order dated 23.02.2021)
    • In this case, the High Court had upheld the principle that seniors should not draw less pay than their juniors where both had passed the same departmental examination and earned advance increments.

  2. Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi

    • Akhilesh Kumar Rastogi Vs. UOI & Ors. (OA No.1139/2022, order dated 22.12.2022)
    • The Tribunal had allowed stepping up of pay on similar facts.

  3. Delhi High Court

    • Union of India & Ors. Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Rastogi (W.P. (C) No.12653/2023, order dated 15.01.2024; cited as 2024 SCC OnLine Del 284)
    • The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition of the Union of India and affirmed the Principal Bench’s order granting stepping up of pay.

These decisions collectively supported the association’s contention that the controversy was no longer res integra and had already been conclusively decided in favour of employees in comparable circumstances.

Findings and Directions of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur

Application of Judicial Discipline

The Tribunal, after examining the material placed on record, observed that the legal issue had already been settled by the Karnataka High Court and by the Principal Bench of CAT, Delhi (as subsequently upheld by the Delhi High Court).