- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Union Of India And Others v. O.P Saxena .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeals arise out of separate orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jabalpur Bench and Lucknow Bench. The respondents, all erstwhile members of the Railway “running staff,” were promoted to the stationary post of Loco Running Supervisor prior to 1-1-1986. After the Fourth Pay Commission introduced revised pay scales with effect from that date, one Shri P. N. Kareer (and, in the companion matter, one Shri S. K. Sood)—who were promoted to the same stationary post after 1-1-1986—began drawing higher pay than the respondents.
Invoking the “stepping-up” principle contained in Rule 1316 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC) and Railway Board letters dated 16-8-1988 and 14-9-1990, the respondents filed Original Applications before the CAT claiming parity with the said juniors. The Tribunal accepted their claims and directed the Railways to step up their pay. The Union of India challenged those directions before the Supreme Court, contending that the pre-conditions for stepping up were not satisfied.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the principle of “stepping up” of pay under Rule 1316 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code can be invoked when the senior and the junior enter the promotional (supervisory) post from different feeder grades/cadres.
- Whether the clarification issued by the Ministry of Railways on 14-9-1990, making the stepping-up rule “subject to codal conditions,” bars the respondents’ claim.
- (In Civil Appeal No. 4664 of 1997) Whether a belated claim for stepping up after retirement is maintainable on identical facts.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (Union of India)
- Rule 1316 permits stepping up only when both the senior and the junior belong to the same cadre and derive promotion from identical feeder posts; the respondents and the comparators (Kareer/Sood) came from different running grades (Driver Grade-C versus Driver Grade-A).
- The Railway Board’s clarification dated 14-9-1990 expressly subjects stepping-up to the “codal conditions,” which are not met in the present cases.
- In the second appeal, the respondent’s application was filed long after retirement and suffers from gross delay and laches.
Respondents
- Relied on Railway Board letter dated 16-8-1988 to argue that stepping up is available whenever a junior in the same promotional post draws a higher salary.
- Contended that the disparity arose solely because of the 30% addition given to running staff when they later convert to the stationary cadre, and this anomaly should be removed through stepping up.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Union of India v. O.P. Saxena (decided in Civil Appeal No. 8852 of 1996) | Clarified that stepping up is impermissible when the senior and junior come from different feeder cadres. | Applied as binding reasoning in Civil Appeal No. 4664 of 1997 to set aside the CAT’s order concerning respondent who compared himself with Shri S. K. Sood. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court examined Rule 1316 of the IREC along with the Presidential decision interpreting it. Two essential conditions were highlighted:
- Both officers must belong to the same cadre, and the promotional posts must be identical within that cadre.
- The scales of pay applicable to their respective lower and higher posts must be identical.
The Court found these conditions absent. Although Kareer and the respondents eventually occupied the same supervisory post, they reached it through different feeder grades—Driver Grade-A in Kareer’s case and Driver Grade-C in the respondents’ case—placing them in distinct cadres with separate seniority lists. Because Kareer’s last drawn basic pay (inclusive of the 30 % running allowance element) was naturally higher, his subsequent pay fixation could not be used for stepping up the respondents’ salaries.
The Ministry’s letter dated 14-9-1990, stipulating that stepping up is “subject to codal conditions,” reinforced this conclusion. In the second appeal, the Court additionally noted that the respondent’s application was filed more than three years after retirement, underscoring its belated nature.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Supreme Court allowed all appeals, set aside the CAT’s orders dated 18-5-1995, 4-10-1995 (Jabalpur Bench), and 27-1-1993 (Lucknow Bench), and dismissed the respondents’ Original Applications. No order as to costs.
Implications: The decision restricts the application of the stepping-up principle to situations where the senior and junior share an identical feeder cadre and promotional channel. It affirms the importance of the codal conditions under Rule 1316 and clarifies that higher pay earned through a distinct career progression cannot be neutralised by stepping up seniors’ pay. The ruling affects only the parties but reinforces existing administrative guidelines without creating new substantive precedent.
B.N Kirpal, J.—
Civil Appeal No. 8852 of 1996 with CAs Nos. 4662-63 of 1997 (arising out of SLP No. 12462 of 1997@ CC No. 1601 of 1996 and SLP No. 24606 of 1996)
1. Leave granted.
2. The issue which arises in these appeals from the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, relates to the stepping up of the pay of the respondents who were promoted as Loco Running Supervisors prior to 1-1-1986 vis-à-vis the pay of one Shri P.N Kareer who was promoted to that post after 1-1-1986 but was drawing higher pay than the respondents.
3. As the questions of facts and law in these appeals are the same, therefore, we propose to dispose of these appeals by a common judgment.
4. In the Railway Administration there is a category of staff called the running staff which is involved in the running of trains. It includes drivers, guards, firemen, shunters and brakesmen. The running staff are entitled to an allowance called the “running allowance” in view of the nature of their duties pertaining to the running of trains. The pay scales of the running staff are considered to be incommensurable with the ordeal of their duty and, therefore, to balance that element the running allowance is given to encourage greater efficiency in the running staff.
5. The locomotive drivers are eligible for promotion, amongst other posts, to those of Loco Supervisors. The aforesaid Shri Kareer and the respondents, at one time, were holding the running post of Driver Grade-C. Shri Kareer had been promoted as Driver Grade-C on 29-8-1961 and was placed in the grade of Rs 150-240 and the respondents had been promoted and appointed as Drivers Grade-C from a date subsequent to 29-8-1961. In other words, Shri Kareer was senior to the respondents as Driver Grade-C.
6. The respondents then opted to be promoted to the “stationary post” of Loco Supervisor directly from the post of Driver Grade-C which they were holding. Their promotion was made prior to 1-1-1986 and they were placed in the grade of Rs 550-750.
7. Shri Kareer chose to remain in the running staff. On 1-1-1981 he was promoted as Driver Grade-B in the scale of Rs 425-640 and his pay was fixed at Rs 580. Thereafter on 28-11-1984 Shri Kareer was promoted as Driver Grade-A in the scale of Rs 550-700. With effect from 1-1-1986 revised pay scales came into existence as a result of the Fourth Pay Commission Report. At that time the respondents were working on the stationary post of Loco Supervisors while Shri Kareer was working on the running post of Driver Grade-A.
8. The pay of running staff on promotion to Loco Supervisor's post is fixed under Rule 1316 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code after fixation of an additional component of thirty per cent of basic pay last drawn in the running cadre, which represents the pay element in the running allowance. On introduction of the revised pay scales with effect from 1-1-1986 this thirty per cent addition in the pay element of the running allowance increased which resulted in higher fixation of pay of running staff appointed as Loco Supervisors after 1-1-1986 than those appointed as Loco Supervisors before 1-1-1986. Therefore, when Shri Kareer was appointed as a Loco Supervisor, his pay as Loco Supervisor was fixed after taking into account the aforesaid thirty per cent addition which resulted in his getting higher pay than the respondents. It appears that the pay of respondent O.P Saxena was stepped up but when the department discovered that the benefit had been wrongly given to him his pay was refixed and recoveries were made of the excess amount paid to him. Shri O.P Saxena challenged the aforesaid decision by filing OA No. 462 of 1994 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur. OAs Nos. 191 of 1994 and 768 of 1993 were filed by the other respondents seeking the benefit of stepping up.
9. The Tribunal first decided the case of Shri O.P Saxena and came to the conclusion that stepping up of the pay was admissible to him. It did not accept the contention of the appellant that Shri Kareer was senior to the respondent O.P Saxena and, furthermore, on a correct interpretation of the Railway Board's letter dated 16-8-1988 the principle of stepping up was not applicable. Following that decision relief was given by the Tribunal to the other respondents herein and, while allowing their OAs Nos. 768 of 1993 and 191 of 1994 the appellant was directed to step up their pay keeping the pay of Shri Kareer in view.
10. In our opinion, the decision of the Tribunal directing stepping up of the pay of the respondents herein was not correct. It had been clarified by the Ministry of Railways in its letter dated 14-9-1990 that the principle of stepping up referred to in its earlier letter of 16-8-1988 was “subject to codal conditions being fulfilled”. The principle of stepping up of pay is contained in Rule 1316 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol. II which also contains conditions which have to be followed while ordering stepping up. Two of the conditions contained therein are:
(a) Both the senior and junior officers should belong to the same cadre and the post in which they have been promoted on a regular basis should be identical in the same cadre;
(b) The scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw should be identical.
11. By a Presidential decision given under Rule 1316 the aforesaid conditions were further explained as follows:
“If as a result of application of the proviso to and the exception below Rule 1313 (FR 22) the pay of the junior is more than that of the senior in the lower post, there would be no question of stepping up the pay of the senior in the higher post. If despite the application of the proviso to and the exception below Rule 1313 (FR 22) the junior's pay is less than that of the senior and on promotion the former's pay happens to be greater than the pay of the latter by virtue of the provisions of Rule 1316 (FR 22-C), stepping up will have to be done with reference to the actual pay drawn by the junior in the higher post.”
12. It is not in dispute that as Driver Grade-C Shri Kareer was senior to and was drawing more salary than the respondents. Thereafter while Shri Kareer remained in the cadre of running staff the respondents by choice opted for being promoted to the supervisory cadre and posted as Loco Supervisors. Thereafter Shri Kareer on the one hand and the respondents on the other belonged to two different cadres having their own seniority list. The pay of Shri Kareer was fixed according to the scales which were approved for the running staff including the running allowance. Shri Kareer was drawing more salary as Driver Grade-A, just before his appointment as a Loco Supervisor, than the respondents. With the revision of pay scales with effect from 1-1-1986 Shri Kareer's pay was fixed at Rs 2360 as on 1-1-1986 while the salary of respondent O.P Saxena on the stationary post which he was holding was Rs 2300. The sources of the recruitment to the post of Loco Supervisor in the case of Shri Kareer vis-à-vis the respondents being different the principle of stepping up of pay would not arise. Whereas the respondents were promoted as Loco Supervisors from Driver Grade-C, Shri Kareer on the other hand was placed in the cadre of Loco Supervisor after being promoted from the post of Driver Grade-A. When the feeder posts of Shri Kareer and that of the other respondents were different the applicability of the principle of stepping up cannot apply. The pay of Shri Kareer had to be fixed with reference to what he was last drawing as Driver Grade-A, a post which was never held by any of the respondents. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in applying the principle of stepping up and in directing the refixation of the pay of the respondents.
13. For the aforesaid reasons the appeals are allowed. The orders dated 18-5-1995 and 4-10-1995 of the Tribunal in OAs Nos. 462 of 1994, 191 of 1994 and 768 of 1993 are set aside. There will be no order as to costs.
Civil Appeal No. 4664 of 1997 @ SLP No. 12463 @ … CC 23426 of 1994
14. Leave granted.
15. The question involved in this case is similar to the one in Civil Appeal No. 8852 of 1996. The only difference is that the respondent in this appeal claimed stepping up of his salary by contending that his junior, one Shri S.K Sood was getting higher pay than him.
16. The respondent was appointed as a Fireman Grade-I in the running cadre in the year 1949. He was promoted to the post of Driver Grade-C and on 27-6-1965 he was promoted to the stationary job as ALF. Thereafter he was appointed to various stationary posts and was allowed the benefit in fixation of pay in the respective posts and grades. His salary as on 1-1-1986, after the Fourth Pay Commission Report, was fixed at Rs 2900. He ultimately retired from service from 31-3-1988 on which date he was drawing a salary of Rs 3050.
17. Shri S.K Sood, with reference to whom the respondent made a claim for stepping up of his pay, was initially appointed as boy fireman in the year 1948 in Ferozpur Division, whereas the respondent was appointed at Lucknow Division. Shri Sood was promoted as Driver Grade-C, then Driver Grade-B and lastly Driver Grade-A. He was promoted to the stationary post of CFI with effect from 5-5-1977 in the grade of Rs 700-900. As in the running cadre he was drawing the maximum of Rs 700 in the grade, his pay on the stationary post was fixed at Rs 900.
18. As the respondent had been posted on the stationary post from the running post of Driver Grade-C, while Shri Sood had been posted on the stationary post from the running post of Driver Grade-A, this had resulted in Shri Sood getting higher pay than the respondent.
19. The respondent did not make any claim for stepping up of his salary as long as he was in service. Having retired on 31-3-1988, in July 1991 he filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal for stepping up of his pay to bring it on a par with that of Shri Sood and also to give him consequential benefits.
20. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment allowed the application and directed that the pay of the respondent should be stepped up and he should be given all the consequential benefits.
21. Apart from the fact that the application of the respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was filed in July 1991 was highly belated, the position in this case is no different from that of Union of India v. O.P Saxena. In this case also the respondent and Shri Sood were appointed to the stationary post from two different sources. The respondent was Driver Grade-C when he was so appointed while Shri Sood was appointed to the stationary post from the post of Driver Grade-A. Therefore, for the reasons contained in the judgment in CA No. 8852 of 1996 the order of the Tribunal has to be set aside.
22. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order dated 27-1-1993 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench with the result that OA No. 322 of 1991 filed by the respondent stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Alert