Stepping Up of Pay with Junior in Indian Service Law

The Principle of Stepping Up of Pay in Indian Service Jurisprudence: An Analysis of Anomalies and Judicial Precedents

Introduction

The principle of "stepping up of pay" is a significant concept within Indian service jurisprudence, designed to address and rectify anomalies where a senior government employee, upon promotion, finds themselves drawing lesser pay than a junior counterpart who is subsequently promoted to the same or an identical post. This doctrine is rooted in notions of fairness, equity, and the maintenance of a rational pay structure within public services. The underlying objective is to ensure that seniority, a crucial aspect of government service, is not inadvertently penalized in terms of emoluments due to the mechanics of pay fixation rules or other administrative exigencies. This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the principle of stepping up of pay, drawing upon key judicial pronouncements from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts, along with relevant governmental instructions and Fundamental Rules that govern the conditions of service for public employees in India.

Genesis and Rationale of Stepping Up of Pay

The foundation for the principle of stepping up of pay can be traced to governmental efforts to remove pay anomalies. A pivotal administrative directive in this regard is the Office Memorandum (O.M.) No. F.2(78)-E.III(A)/66 dated February 4, 1966, issued by the Government of India. As noted by the Delhi High Court in Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. Petitioners v. Saroj Khosla And Ors. S (Delhi High Court, 2013), this O.M. was specifically introduced "to remove the anomaly of a Government servant promoted or appointed to a higher post on or after 1-4-1961 drawing a lower rate of pay in that post than another Government servant junior to him in the lower grade and promoted or appointed subsequently to another identical post." The rationale is straightforward: it is inherently unjust for a senior employee to receive less pay than their junior in an identical higher post, provided the anomaly is not due to reasons attributable to the senior or other justifiable differentiating factors. The principle aims to uphold morale and prevent dissatisfaction arising from such pay disparities.

Conditions Precedent for Invoking Stepping Up of Pay

The application of the stepping up principle is not automatic and is contingent upon the fulfillment of several stringent conditions. These conditions have been reiterated and clarified in numerous judicial decisions and government instructions.

1. Same Cadre and Identical Posts

A primary condition is that both the senior and junior officers must belong to the same cadre, and the posts to which they have been promoted (or appointed on a regular basis) must be identical and within the same cadre (Union Of India And Others v. O.P Saxena, Supreme Court Of India, 1997; R. Ramaraj Petitioner v. The Registrar General, High Court Of Judicature At Madras, Madras High Court, 2014). This ensures a like-for-like comparison.

2. Identical Scales of Pay

The scales of pay for both the lower post (from which they were promoted) and the higher post (to which they are promoted) must be identical for both the senior and junior employees (Union Of India And Others v. O.P Saxena, 1997; R. Ramaraj Petitioner v. The Registrar General, 2014).

3. Anomaly as a Direct Result of Rule Application

The pay anomaly must be a direct consequence of the application of pay fixation rules, such as Fundamental Rule 22-C (or its equivalent) or F.R. 22-B (MAHESHKUMAR CHANDULAL PATEL v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT, Supreme Court Of India, 2024; Union Of India And Others v. Sushil Kumar Paul And Others, Supreme Court Of India, 1998). Crucially, if the junior was already drawing higher pay in the lower post due to reasons such as advance increments, previous officiating service, or any other account unrelated to the specific pay fixation on the current promotion, the principle of stepping up will not apply (MAHESHKUMAR CHANDULAL PATEL v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT, 2024; Union Of India And Others v. O.P Saxena, 1997; Union Of India And Others v. Sushil Kumar Paul And Others, 1998). The Presidential decision under Rule 1316, cited in O.P. Saxena, clarifies that if the junior's pay is more than the senior's in the lower post itself, there is no question of stepping up in the higher post.

4. Timing of Promotion and Increments

Fundamental Rule 22-B(2), as discussed in R. Ramaraj Petitioner v. The Registrar General (2014), addresses a specific scenario: where both senior and junior draw the same pay in the lower post, but the senior is promoted before drawing the next increment in the lower post, while the junior is promoted after drawing it. In such cases, the senior might draw less pay, and stepping up is permissible from the date of the junior's promotion, subject to other conditions being met.

5. Other Stipulations from Government Orders

The O.M. dated February 4, 1966, and subsequent clarifications, such as the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) O.M. dated November 4, 1993 (referred to in State Of West Bengal And Others v. Debasish Mukherjee And Others, Supreme Court Of India, 2011, and Union Of India And Others v. Sushil Kumar Paul And Others, 1998), outline specific conditions. The stepping up is generally effective from the date the junior officer is promoted to the higher post. The pay of the senior, once stepped up, is not to be reduced if the junior reverts, nor increased again with reference to the same junior (MAHESHKUMAR CHANDULAL PATEL v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT, 2024).

Judicial Interpretation and Application

Indian courts have extensively deliberated upon the nuances of stepping up of pay, striving to balance the employee's right to fair treatment with administrative exigencies and the integrity of pay structures.

Upholding the Principle for Parity

The Supreme Court has consistently affirmed the principle when the stipulated conditions are met. In Gurcharan Singh Grewal And Another v. Punjab State Electricity Board And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 2009), the Court held that a senior cannot be paid a lesser salary than their junior, and an anomaly arising even from differences in incremental benefits in pay scales should be rectified. This view was reiterated in Sudamrao Keshawrao Aher v. State Of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court, 2013) and PURNA CH.MOHAPATRA v. STATE (Orissa High Court, 2022). The Court in Gurcharan Singh Grewal emphasized that "the very object to be achieved is to bring the pay scale of Appellant 1 on a par with that of Shri Shori [the junior]".

In Union Of India And Others v. P. Jagdish And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 1996), the Supreme Court upheld the application of the stepping up principle where seniors promoted earlier ended up earning less than juniors promoted later who benefited from a special pay component linked to certain posts. However, the Court directed that such stepping up should be prospective, meaning it would align future pay without granting retrospective arrears for the period prior to the claim or decision.

Distinguishing Justifiable Pay Differences: When Stepping Up is Not Allowed

The judiciary has been equally clear that stepping up is not a universal remedy for all pay differences.

  • Local Officiating Promotions by Juniors: In Union Of India And Another v. R. Swaminathan And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 1997), the Supreme Court held that pay disparities arising because juniors had officiated in higher posts on a local, temporary basis and thereby accrued higher pay upon regular promotion did not constitute an anomaly requiring stepping up for seniors. The Court reasoned that such higher pay for juniors was a consequence of legitimate administrative practices governed by rules like Fundamental Rule 22(I)(a)(1) and its proviso.
  • Junior Drawing Higher Pay in Lower Post: As established earlier, if the junior was already drawing higher pay in the lower grade due to advance increments, superior performance, or other legitimate reasons before the promotion in question, stepping up is generally denied (MAHESHKUMAR CHANDULAL PATEL v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT, 2024; Union Of India And Others v. O.P Saxena, 1997; Union Of India And Others v. Sushil Kumar Paul And Others, 1998). The anomaly must arise *after* and *because of* the promotion to the higher grade under the relevant pay fixation rules.
  • Different Recruitment Rules/Qualifications: If pay differences stem from different modes of recruitment, qualifications, or if the posts are not truly identical in terms of duties and responsibilities, the principle of stepping up may not apply. The broader principle of "equal pay for equal work" itself allows for reasonable classifications (State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others v. G. Sreenivasa Rao And Others, Supreme Court Of India, 1989).
  • Senior's Own Actions or Circumstances: Stepping up may be denied if the senior proceeded on extraordinary leave affecting their increment, refused or forewent promotion allowing the junior to be promoted earlier, or was on deputation while the junior availed of an ad-hoc promotion in the cadre (State Of West Bengal And Others v. Debasish Mukherjee And Others, 2011, citing DoPT O.M. dated 4-11-1993).
  • Junior's Earlier Ad-hoc Promotion: If a junior officiated in the higher post on an ad-hoc basis for a period before regular promotion, and this service led to higher pay fixation for the junior upon regular promotion, the senior cannot typically claim stepping up on that account (Union Of India And Others v. Sushil Kumar Paul And Others, 1998).

Role of Fundamental Rules (FR 22, FR 22-C, FR 22-B)

Fundamental Rules, particularly FR 22 and its sub-rules like FR 22-C (now often part of FR 22(I)(a)(1)) and FR 22-B, are central to pay fixation on promotion. The stepping up principle is essentially a corrective measure for anomalies that arise from the strict application of these rules in certain circumstances. For example, FR 22(I)(a)(1) (previously FR 22-C) provides for pay fixation by granting one increment in the old scale and fixing pay at the same stage if available in the new scale, or at the next higher stage. Anomalies can occur when a junior, promoted later, benefits from an intervening increment or a more favorable application of this rule due to the timing of their promotion.

Limitations and Exceptions to Stepping Up

The DoPT O.M. dated November 4, 1993, explicitly lists several instances where stepping up of pay cannot be claimed. These include situations where:

  • A senior proceeds on extraordinary leave, leading to postponement of their increment in the lower post.
  • A senior foregoes or refuses promotion, allowing a junior to be promoted earlier.
  • A senior is on deputation while a junior avails of an ad-hoc promotion in the cadre.
  • The increased pay of the junior is due to ad-hoc officiating or regular service rendered in the higher post for periods earlier than the senior.
  • The junior was drawing higher pay in the lower post itself due to advance increments or other reasons.
  • The posts are not identical or do not belong to the same cadre.

These exceptions underscore that stepping up is intended to rectify genuine anomalies arising from the pay fixation process on promotion to identical posts, not to compensate for all conceivable pay differences between seniors and juniors. The Central Administrative Tribunal in MS AMITA VERMA v. M/O COMMERCE (Central Administrative Tribunal, 2016) reiterated that stepping up is permissible only when the conditions mentioned in the O.M. dated 04.02.1966 are fulfilled.

The "Equal Pay for Equal Work" Doctrine in Context

While the principle of stepping up of pay shares a conceptual kinship with the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" (enshrined under Articles 14, 16, and 39(d) of the Constitution of India), it operates in a more specific domain. The "equal pay for equal work" doctrine is broader, addressing pay disparities for individuals performing similar work under similar conditions. However, as held in State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others v. G. Sreenivasa Rao And Others (1989), this doctrine does not prohibit reasonable classifications based on differing qualifications, responsibilities, or modes of recruitment. The Delhi High Court in SANJAY GUPTA v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL (Delhi High Court, 2022) also noted that mere similarity of designation or quantum of work is not determinative; various factors like mode of recruitment, qualifications, and responsibilities are relevant. Stepping up, in contrast, typically applies where the posts, qualifications, and responsibilities are identical, and the anomaly arises purely from the timing and mechanics of pay fixation on promotion.

Procedural Aspects and Relief

Claims for stepping up of pay are usually initiated through representations to the concerned administrative authorities. If denied, employees may approach the Central Administrative Tribunal or the relevant High Court. When stepping up is granted, it is often with prospective effect, as directed in Union Of India And Others v. P. Jagdish And Others (1996). Courts and tribunals may also restrict the payment of arrears. For instance, in cases like SEHDEV PASWAN v. D/O CENSUS (Central Administrative Tribunal, 2019) and KAMLESH SHARMA v. CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS (Central Administrative Tribunal, 2018), arrears were restricted, often to three years prior to the filing of the petition, aligning with principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding stale claims (e.g., Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648).

It is also pertinent to note the observation in N. Gangaiah, Retired Tbop Sorting Assistant... (Central Administrative Tribunal, 2007), which mentioned a clarification that stepping up of pay could be allowed to a senior official for a second time, provided the anomaly has arisen with reference to the pay of the *same junior* with reference to whom the pay was first stepped up. This suggests a limited scope for repeated stepping up.

Conclusion

The principle of stepping up of pay serves as a crucial mechanism in Indian service law to ensure fairness and equity in the remuneration of government employees. It addresses the specific anomaly where a senior employee draws less pay than a junior in an identical promotional post due to the intricacies of pay fixation rules. However, its application is not unbridled and is subject to a stringent set of conditions, meticulously laid down in government orders and consistently interpreted by the judiciary. The courts have sought to strike a balance, upholding the principle where genuine anomalies exist while preventing its misuse to claim parity in situations involving justifiable pay differentials arising from factors like prior service, officiating appointments, or the senior's own choices. By ensuring that seniority is generally respected in pay matters upon promotion to identical roles, the doctrine of stepping up of pay contributes to maintaining morale and a rational pay structure within the public services in India.