Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose when the respondent applied to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, seeking to quash a government order that rejected his request for stepping up his pay to match that of his juniors who were promoted earlier. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, allowing stepping up of pay for a period of three years prior to his application. The appellants challenged this decision, arguing that the principle of stepping up does not apply when juniors are promoted on an ad hoc basis. They cited a precedent where the Supreme Court clarified that higher pay for juniors due to ad hoc promotions does not create an anomaly for seniors. The respondent contended that the previous case only addressed short-term ad hoc promotions, while his junior had a long-term ad hoc promotion. The court found that the distinction made by the respondent was not supported by the relevant rules or government memorandum, which did not differentiate between short-term and long-term ad hoc promotions. The court upheld the precedent set in the earlier case and dismissed the appeal, stating that the Tribunal's reasoning was flawed and that ad hoc promotions are made based on administrative exigencies. The court concluded that the stepping up of pay was not warranted in this case.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Stepping Up of Pay - Application of Stepping Up Principle - Fundamental Rule 22, 1997 - The court held that the principle of stepping up of pay does not apply when a junior has been promoted on an ad hoc basis prior to the senior's promotion, as per the Government memorandum. The court dismissed the appeal against the Tribunal's order, affirming that the increased pay drawn by a junior due to ad hoc officiating does not constitute an anomaly (Paras 4-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the principle of stepping up of pay applies when a junior has been promoted on an ad hoc basis prior to the senior's promotion.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and dismissed the application for stepping up of pay.
Law Points
- Stepping up of pay
- Ad hoc promotions
- Fundamental Rule 22
- Administrative policy
- Seniority principle
