Central Administrative Tribunal
Yogesh Kumar Gupta vs GNCTD on 4 November 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH
61/35, COPERNICUS MARG,NEW DELHI-110001
Order Sheet
Item no.: 69
O.A./4078/2024 (DELHI)
[ STEPPING UP OF PAY ]
[ SENIOR CITIZEN ]
Court No.: 5
No of Adjournment: 11
Order Dated: 04/11/2026
YOGESH KUMAR GUPTA
Vs
GNCTD
For Applicant(s) Advocate : Mr Rajesh Kumar Chauhan For Respondent(s) Advocate : Mrs Purnima Maheshwari Order of The Tribunal
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The learned counsel for the respondents clarifies the position regarding the pay fixation of the applicant vis-à-vis Shri Satyaveer Singh. In this regard, she refers to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the preliminary submissions made by the respondents in their counter reply filed on 12.02.2025, along with Annexures R-4 and R-5.
2. The learned counsel for the respondents has also placed on record a comparative chart reflecting the pay fixation and revision of the various pay scales in respect of the applicant and Shri Satyaveer Singh, as contained in Annexures R-4 and R-5, respectively.
3. She further submits that the dates of joining of the applicant and Shri Satyaveer Singh are different and that their annual increments also fell in different months. The applicant and Shri Satyaveer Singh initially joined on different dates, i.e., 12.09.1988 and 13.03.1989, respectively. Subsequently, the pay scales were revised from time to time pursuant to the recommendations of the respective Pay Commissions. In 2016, the pay was fixed in accordance with the recommendations of the Seventh Central Pay Commission, after obtaining the appropriate options from both the applicant and Shri Satyaveer Singh, along with other employees.
4. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no irregularity in the pay fixation of the applicant vis-à-vis Shri Satyaveer Singh. She further submits that if the applicant had any grievance regarding his pay fixation at any particular point of time, he ought to have raised the same at the relevant time. Having retired from service, the applicant cannot seek to reopen the issue of pay fixation by comparing his pay with that of another employee after such a considerable lapse of time.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant, on the other hand, refers to the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 26.10.2018, particularly paragraphs 2 and 3 thereof. She specifically draws our attention to clause 2(c) of the said Office Memorandum.
6. A query was put to the learned counsel for the applicant as to whether the applicant satisfies the condition stipulated in clause 2(c) of the said Office Memorandum.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant is unable to give a definite answer to the same.
8. Heard.
9. Reserved. Shri Rajveer Singh Verma Member (J) Chhabilendra Roul Member (A) Pinky Yadav ( steno 'c' )