Shri Shyamalendu Chanda vs INDIA METEOROLOGICAL DEPARTMENT on 16 October 2026

ORDER

PER R.S. DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

The instant OA has been filed by the applicant praying for the following relief(s):- “8.1 That the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to grant stepping up of pay to the applicant in scale of pay of Rs. 16580+4800 with effect from 01.07.2006 at par with his junior, Sri V.B. Bhavsar, AM.II in terms of the order dated 16.05.2016 which has been approved by the office of the DGM, New Delhi vide order dated 26.09.2016. 8.2 That the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to revise pay of the applicant in the scale of pay of Rs. 16580+4800 with effect from 01.07.2006 after stepping up of his pay and thereafter to revise the regular monthly pension and retiral benefits of the applicant including gratuity, LTC leave encashment, 10 months leave encashment, commutation of pension, Central Government Group Insurance and regular monthly pension etc. with arrear monetary benefits and l2% interest on arrear monetary benefits. 8.3 Any other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, including the cost of the case.”

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant has retired on superannuation on 30.09.2016 from the post of Meteorologist-B of the office of Head CR&S, IMD, Shivaji Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra. He is aggrieved with denial of benefit of stepping up of his pay with reference to pay of his junior, Shri V.B. Bhavsar, AM-II which was sanctioned vide Order dated 16.05.2016 issued by the Office of Deputy by SOURABH KUMAR SOURAB H KUMAR

Director General, Meteorology(SI), Pune, which was further approved by the Office of the Director General, Meteorology, New Delhi on 26.09.2016. However, the sanction of stepping up of pay of the applicant with reference to pay of his junior, Shri V.B. Bhavsar, AM-II has not been implemented till date. As a result, the applicant has suffered huge monetary losses in his pay and allowances and retiral benefits. His pension has been granted to him in lower pay at Rs. 77,900/- instead of Rs. 80,200/-. The applicant is drawing much lesser monthly pension which has given rise to consequential losses in each and every month. The Administrative Officer, Grade- III of the office of CR&S, Pune vide letter dated 04.02.2022 has informed the applicant that the competent authority on the basis of the representation dated 23.11.2021 submitted by the applicant, has taken up the case of applicant for re- examination but to no result. Hence this Original Application.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the junior never got more salary than the applicant and the representation of the petitioner was duly considered and was rejected. In the case of the present applicant, he has not drawn less pay than his Junior- V.B. Bhavsar before receiving by SOURABH KUMAR SOURAB H KUMAR

the ACP. From the service book, it is reflected that the applicant was allowed to cross E.B. with effect from 01.09.1996 instead of 01.05.1996; due to the said reason, the applicant was drawing less pay for the last 5 months in comparison to his junior, Shri V.B Bhavsar. Therefore, it is not a case of stepping up of pay. The office memorandum relates to only senior who got less pay than the junior. Further, Department of Personnel & Training No. 4/7/92-Estt. (Pay-I) dated 04.11.1993 Para 2(a) wherein junior drawing more pay than Senior will not constitute an anomaly, it has been stated as follows: "where a senior proceeds on extraordinary leave which result in postponement of date of next increment in the lower post, consequently he starts drawing less pay than his junior in the lower grade itself. He, therefore, cannot claim pay parity on promotion even though he may be promoted earlier to the higher grade."

Counsel further states that the applicant was rightly granted the pay of Rs.77900/- and since the applicant crossed the efficiency bar in the month of September, no anomaly has been done in fixation of the last pay drawn. Hence, it is not a case of stepping up of pay. Further, the grievance of the applicant has been duly considered in the by SOURABH KUMAR SOURAB H KUMAR

year 2016 and was rejected; therefore, granting the same in later stage or submission of repeated representation cannot treat any right. The case of the applicant has been duly rejected as per law and he is not entitled for benefit of stepping up of pay as per office memorandum nor as per provision of FR 22 and as such, original application is liable to be dismissed with cost.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the year 1995, the applicant was granted 2 months’ leave to visit England in connection with open heart surgery of his elder brother in U.K. The Director, Meteorological Centre, Guwahati, permitted leave to the applicant. When the applicant returned from U.K, 2 (two) months leave period was over. However, the Regional Head Quarter converted the leave to ‘EOL’ without the permission of Meteorological Centre. Since there was prior permission of leave from the Competent Authority, there was no loss to the services of the applicant. The applicant was granted next increment w.e.f. 01.09.1996. In the order dated 12.11.1997 at Sl. No. 15, it has been stated that stepping up of pay will be considered later if case arises. As such, there was no fault on the part of applicant, the by SOURABH KUMAR SOURAB H KUMAR

applicant has been arbitrarily denied stepping up of pay at par with junior, V.B. Bhavsar. As a result of denial of stepping up of pay of applicant at par with junior, V.B. Bhavsar as approved by the competent authority vide order dated 26.09.2016, the applicant has drawn lesser pensionary benefit as well as less monthly pension, which has given rise to continuous cause of action to approach this Tribunal. Further, there is no delay in approaching this Tribunal as because in the case of M.R. Gupta –Vs- Union of India (1995) 5 SCC 628, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in cases relating to proper pay fixation, application cannot be treated as time-bared since it is based on a recurring cause of action.

Counsel also states that applicant’s junior, V.B. Bhavsar was drawing more pay than the applicant w.e.f. 01.07.2006 on account of grant of 2nd ACP from 08.04.2006. Accordingly, the Office of Deputy Director General of Meteorology, Pune vide office order dated 16.05.2016 granted stepping up of pay of the applicant at par with his junior, V.B. Bhavsar which is evident from Annexure A/2 of O.A. The respondents have not disputed the Orders dated 16.05.2016 (Annexure A/2) and by SOURABH KUMAR SOURAB H KUMAR

26.09.2016 (Annexure A/3) of the O.A. in their written statement. It is pertinent to mention here that after approval of the competent authority for stepping up of pay of the applicant vide order dated 26.09.2016, the pay of the applicant was stepped up and fixed at Rs. 80,200/- on the date of his superannuation as it is evident from the Annexure- A/10 of the OA. As such, the respondents are not permitted to deny the order dated 16.05.2016 and 26.09.2016, which were issued by the competent authority after due verification of service book of the applicant and granted stepping up of pay of the applicant vide order dated 16.05.2016 in terms of DoPT O.M. dated 04.10.2012. As such, the respondents have wrongly taken the plea of delay by 5 months for grant of crossing of E.B. w.e.f. 01.09.1996 instead of 01.05.1996 which is absolutely incorrect as because the applicant is entitled to grant of stepping up of his pay in terms of DoPT O.M. dated 04.10.2012. The O.M. dated 04.11.1993 cannot be made applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case of the applicant rather the applicant is entitled to stepping up of his pay in terms of the DoP&T O.M No. 35034/1/97-Estt (D) dated 04.10.2012. It is also stated that when a senior is getting lower pay than his by SOURABH KUMAR SOURAB H KUMAR

junior, then, the pay of the senior officer should be stepped up to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for the junior officer which is in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the same is duly applicable in the case of the applicants for stepping up of their pay at par with their juniors.

5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records.

6. The core issue arises before this Tribunal is whether a junior-senior anomaly exists between the applicant and Shri V.B. Bhavsar to justify an order for stepping up of pay under the relevant rules and DoP&T guidelines.

7. A perusal of the audited Bill Return Memo (Annexure-B of the Written Statement) breaks down the entire claim of the applicant. The primary requirement for stepping up of pay is that the junior officer must be drawing a higher pay in the same cadre due directly to an anomaly or a policy shift, while the senior officer must have been promoted earlier or hold a clear length of senior service in that specific grade. The service book logs and audit reports completely falsify this by SOURABH KUMAR SOURAB H KUMAR

premise. Shri V.B. Bhavsar was promoted to the post of Scientific Assistant on 20.04.1995, whereas the applicant, Shri S. Chanda, achieved his promotion to the same post only later, on 05.05.1995. Since Shri Bhavsar entered the promoted grade ahead of the applicant, he cannot be treated as a "junior" for the purposes of establishing a pay anomaly in that cadre. Thus, the protection of the DoP&T O.M. dated 04.10.2012 is completely unavailable to the applicant.

8. Furthermore, the record clarifies that the applicant’s pay was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar (E.B.) and he was granted an increment with effect from 01.09.1996 instead of 01.05.1996 due to his absence on Extraordinary Leave (EOL). As per settled service jurisprudence and Para 2(a) of DoP&T O.M. dated 04.11.1993, when a senior officer proceeds on leave that shifts their regular date of next increment in the lower grade, drawing less pay for those months does not constitute an actionable anomaly.

9. The comparative sheet submitted by the administrative office erroneously tried to backdate the applicant's entitlement to 01.05.1996 without a valid revision order. The audit mechanism rightly intercepted this error.

by SOURABH KUMAR SOURAB H KUMAR

Because the lower pay drawn by the applicant was the direct result of his own service breaks and the junior's prior date of regular promotion, the claim for stepping up lacks any legal or factual foundation. The pension of the applicant was correctly settled at Rs. 77,900/-.

10. From the aforesaid facts and detailed analysis of the audited service records, we are of the considered opinion that the instant O.A. lacks merit. Accordingly, the O.A. is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit.

11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending M.A., if any, stands disposed of.

12. No order as to costs.

(MALLIKA ARYA) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

/SK/

by SOURABH KUMAR SOURAB H KUMAR