Judgment:
Hon'ble Mrs. K. Noorjehan, Administrative Member
The applicant, Chief Accounts Officer (Telephones), Revenue Accounts Unit, Ernakulam, is aggrieved by the denial of stepping up of pay with that of his junior.
2. The applicant and 5th respondent are Chief Accounts Officers working in the BSNL, Ernakulam. According to the applicant, as on 3.8.1989 he and 5th respondent, who is junior to him, were drawing the same pay of Rs. 2180/-in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200. The applicant was then granted two advance increments of Rs. 60/- each for passing the intermediate examination of the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India (Ext. P-2). While so, pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1156/93 dated 29.10.93 filed by Shri C.M. Yacob and Others, the pay of the applicant and the 5th respondent were stepped upto Rs. 2750/-in the scale of Rs. 2375-75-3200-EB-100-3500 (A3). While stepping up the pay of the applicant and 5th respondent to that of Shri Sankaranarayanan Accounts Officer, Tamil Nadu, the two advance increments to which the applicant was entitled was denied. The representations submitted by the applicant was rejected. Subsequently two advance increments @ Rs. 75/ each w.e.f. 23.6.1994 were granted to 5th respondent consequent on his passing the ICWA intermediate examination held in 1994 fixing his pay at Rs. 3125/-(P-4). The applicant has not been granted stepping up of pay on par with the 5th respondent. According to the applicant this has resulted in an anomaly. Aggrieved, he filed a representation which was rejected by the impugned order (P-6). Hence he filed this O.A. on the ground that he is senior to the 5th respondent in the cadre of Accounts Officers, he passed intermediate examination of ICWA in December, 1988 and was granted two advance increments whereas the 5th respondent who passed the examination only in June, 1994 is drawing a higher pay than the applicant, it is violative of Fundamental Principles of service law and negation of the rule of equality enshrined in Article 14 and 16, it is against the concept of equal pay for equal work and against Govt. of India order below FR 27 pertaining to grant of advance increments to IA andAD officials for qualifying in ICWA. Hence he filed this O.A. seeking to quash P-6 and for re-fixing the pay of the applicant at Rs. 3125/- on par with that of the 5th respondent.
3. Per contra, the respondents in the reply statement submitted that the applicant was granted two advance increments in December, 1988 in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-60-23000-EB-75-3200 and his pay fixed at Rs. 2300/- whereas the 5th respondent passed the same examination on 23.6.1994 while he was drawing the pay scale of Rs. 2375-75-3200-100-3500 and accordingly his pay was fixed at Rs. 3,125/- by granting two advance increments. It is also submitted that the pay of the applicant and the 5th respondent were stepped up to that of their junior one Sankara Narayanan by virtue of order of this Tribunal in OA.1156/93. Up to the date of stepping up of pay, the applicant enjoyed the benefit of two advance increments which were nullified consequent upon the stepping up of pay. They also submitted that the rate of increment cannot be changed/revised. They further submitted that the applicant and the 5th respondent earned advance increments in different cadre and different pay scale. The applicant earned advance increments @ Rs. 60/-in the lower cadre of Assistant Accounts Officer whereas the 5th respondent earned the increments @ Rs. 75/-in the higher cadre of Accounts Officer. They denied that it is an anomaly coming under stepping up of pay rules. They also relied on DOPT OM NO. 4/7/92-Estt (Pay-I) dated 4.11.1993 They stated that the anomaly can be stated to exist only if a senior is drawing less pay than a junior as a result of application of FR 22. They further submitted that stepping up of pay of a senior for a second time is admissible only with the same junior official. The pay of the applicant was already stepped up in the Accounts Officer cadre at par with his junior Shri Sankaranaryanan, AO of Tamil Nadu Circle. Therefore as per rules stepping up of his pay for a second time is not admissible with another junior official. They also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Union of India Vs. Swaminathan and Ors Civil Appeal No. 8698/96 holding that employees are not entitled to have their pay stepped up under FR 22 1(a)(i) at par with their juniors who are getting more pay due to local/adhoc officiating promotion under exigencies of service.
4. Applicant filed rejoinder reiterating his stand in the O.A. He further relied on the order of the Madras bench of the Tribunal in E. Sarasian Vs. Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes New Delhi and Others (1991)17 ATC 673) relating to stepping up of pay in the case of an anomaly arisen due to grant of advance increments to a senior person in a lower post in the pre-revised scale and to a junior person in the higher post in the revised scale (P-8).
5. The respondents Department filed additional reply statement.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records brought to our notice.
7. We notice that the applicant is seeking stepping up of pay for the second time. Admittedly the applicant is senior to the 5th respondent. The applicant while working as Assistant Accounts Officer on passing the ICWA Inter examination was granted two advance increments in December, 1988. Later, his pay in the cadre of Accounts Officer was stepped up in relation to the pay of his junior Shri Sankaranarayanan, AO of Tamil Nadu Circle. The two advance increments granted to him were merged with his pay, while stepping up his pay. Whereas, the 5th respondent' whose pay was stepped up along with the applicant in relation to the pay of their junior Shri Sankaranarayanan, AO Tamil Nadu Circle, acquired the ICWA inter qualification only in June, 1994 and was therefore granted two advance increments w.e.f. that date. That means while the two increments received by the applicant were merged with his pay while stepping up with the pay of his junior, the 5th respondent received the stepping up of pay first and then received the two advance increments. The advance increments are granted as per the rules given below:
Advance increments to IAandAD officials for qualifying in. AICA, /ICWA examinations-It has been decided to liberalise the existing scheme of granting incentives for passing ICWA examination to the following extent
(a) At present departmental official qualifying in ICWA-Final are entitled to two advance increments. It has been decided to put them on par with fresh recruits coming in with the same qualifications. In other words, departmental candidates will also now be entitled to six advance increments on their qualifying in ICWA Final Examination.
X X X X X X X
(c) Currently, officials who qualify in intermediate stage of ICWA get a cash award of Rs. 200. They will now get two advance increments which would get absorbed in the six advance increments granted after qualifying in the Final Examination. At present the above incentive is granted to non-gazetted staff only. It has been decided to extend this incentive to Group-B officers also.
(CandAG of India, New Delhi letter No. 799-NI-5-91 (Circular NO. NGE/18/91) dated the 18th April, 1991.)
8. There is no dispute that the applicant and the 5th respondent do not belong to same cadre and the post to which they have been promoted are identical and in the same cadre. The Deptt. Of Personnel and Training OM NO. 4/7/92-Estt.(Pay-1) dated the 4th November, 1993) has specified the instances which do not constitute an anomaly for stepping up of pay with reference to juniors-Cases for stepping up of the play of seniors in a pay scale to that of juniors are generally considered if the following conditions are satisfied:
2. X X X X X X X
(f) Where a junior gets more pay due to additional increments earned on acquiring higher qualifications.
3. In the instances referred to in Para 2 above, a junior drawing more pay than the senior will not constitute an anomaly. In such cases, stepping up of pay will not, therefore, be admissible.
From the above it is clear that the 5th respondent acquired the intermediate qualification of ICWA and thus became eligible for two advance increments. As per the DOPT OM dated 18.4.1991 it is specifically stated that it is not a ground for stepping up of the pay of the senior to that of the junior.
9. The applicant has brought to our notice decision of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in E. Sarasian Vs. Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi and Others ( O.A. 1018/89) on stepping up of pay with reference to pay of junior-anomaly arising due to grant of advance increments to a senior person in a lower post in the pre-revised scale and to a junior person in a higher post in the revised scale. In that case the Tribunal directed the respondents to refix the pay of the applicant in the cadre of Tax Assistant at Rs. 500/-p.m. with effect from 14.7.1979. The applicant shall also be paid consequential monetary benefits due. In our considered view the issue raised in this case is different from the issue in the case on hand. In the above case the anomaly occurred due to revision of pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1973.
10. Similarly, in the case in Madhavan Assan Vs. Kerala SSI and E.Corp. Ltd. ( 1990 (2) KLT 871) relied on by the applicant, the payment of lesser salary for an admitted senior who is similarly situated like his junior amounts to an unequal treatment meted out to equals, thereby violating Art. 14 of the Constitution. In the case on hand the senior and junior are not similarly situated like in the case relied on by the applicant. Though the applicant is senior to the 5th respondent, by virtue of the junior acquiring additional qualifications making him eligible for two advance increments enables him to draw higher pay which according to the DOPT OM is not a ground for stepping up of pay of the senior.
11. In this view of the above, we do not find any merit in the T.A. It is dismissed accordingly. No costs.