UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus SHRI C.R. MADHAVA MURTHY & ANR. on 6 April 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonjudgment and order dated 31.07.2021 passed by the High Court ofKarnataka in Writ Petition Nos. 33038-33039/2016, by which the HighCourt has allowed the said writ petitions, the Union of India and othershave preferred the present appeals.

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are asunder: - 2.1 That the respondents herein - original writ petitioners wereappointed as Lower Division Clerk on 01.02.1973 and 03.08.1973,respectively. Thereafter, they were promoted to the post of Upper DivisionClerk on 04.10.1976. That one of the respondents was promoted toofficiate as an Inspector w.e.f. 02.04.1981 and the other respondentwas promoted to officiate as an Inspector on 13.07.1981. One Shri C.K.Satish was appointed as an Inspector on 17.12.1981 by way of directrecruitment and one Shri B.S. Srikanth was also appointed as an Inspectorby way of direct recruitment on 15.05.1982.

In order to provide upgradation to its employees and to removethe stagnation on a particular post, the Union of India introduced “Assured AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

ACareer Progression Scheme” (ACP Scheme) w.e.f. 09.08.1999. Thesaid Shri C.K. Satish and Shri B.S. Srikanth were granted upgradationunder the ACP Scheme. The original writ petitioners were promoted tothe post of Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs on 02.07.2000.The employees, juniors to the original writ petitioners were grantedupgradation under the ACP Scheme w.e.f. 17.12.2005 and 15.05.2006.BHowever, it so happened that the persons who were placed lower in theupgradation list than the original writ petitioners, on account of upgradationgranted to them under the ACP Scheme, started drawing higher pay.Therefore, the original writ petitioners submitted a representation to theDepartment for stepping up and to remove the anomaly and to fix theirCsalaries at par with their juniors. Thereafter, the original writ petitionerspreferred O.A. Nos. 813 & 814/2014 before the Central AdministrativeTribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru. By the common order dated04.01.2016, the Tribunal rejected the said applications. Feeling aggrievedand dissatisfied with the common order dated 04.01.2016 passed by theTribunal, the respondents herein preferred the present writ petitions beforeDthe High Court. On considering FR 22, which provides for stepping upof pay and the removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay of a senior onpromotion drawing lesser pay than his junior, by the impugned commonjudgment and order the High Court has allowed the writ petitions andhas directed the appellants herein to step up the pay of the respondentsEherein, keeping in view the pay scale which has been granted to thejuniors from the date they have started drawing lesser pay than theirjuniors.

2.2 Feeling aggrieved with the impugned common judgment andorder passed by the High Court, the Union of India and others haveFpreferred the present appeals.

3. Ms. Madhvi Divan, learned ASG, appearing on behalf of theappellants has vehemently submitted that while passing the impugnedcommon judgment and order, the High Court has not at all appreciatedand/or properly considered the ACP Scheme.

G

3.1 It is submitted that the respective original writ petitioners werealready promoted to the post of Superintendent of Central Excise andCustoms. It is submitted that once the respective writ petitioners werealready granted the promotion, thereafter, there was no question ofgranting any stepping up of pay under the ACP Scheme.H

3.2 It is submitted that the High Court has not at all appreciatedthe object and purpose of ACP Scheme. It is submitted that as per thecatena of judgments of this Court and various High Courts, the purposeof the ACP Scheme/MACP Scheme is to relieve the frustration onaccount of stagnation and the Scheme does not involve the actual grantof promotional post to the employees, but to merely monetary benefits inthe form of next higher grade subject to fulfilment of qualifications andeligibility criteria. It is submitted therefore that when in the present casethe original writ petitioners were already promoted to the next higherpost – Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs and they wereplaced in the appropriate pay scale of the promotional post, thereafter,there was no question of any stepping up in the pay.

4. Having heard Ms. Madhvi Divan, learned ASG and consideringthe facts and circumstances of the case, which has emerged from theimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it cannot besaid that the original writ petitioners were as such claiming the steppingup of the pay under the ACP Scheme. Their grievance was with respectto the anomaly in the pay scale and their grievance was that while grantingupgradation under the ACP Scheme, their juniors were getting highersalaries than what they receive. Therefore, it was a case of removal ofanomaly by stepping up of pay of seniors on promotion drawing a lesspay than their juniors.

5. The High Court has therefore rightly relied and/or consideredFR 22 and the order issued by the Government of India on removal ofanomaly by stepping up of pay, which reads as under: - “(22) Removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay of Senior onpromotion drawing less pay than his junior - (a) As a result ofapplication of FR 22 -C. [Now FR 22 (I) (a) (1)]. In order toremove the anomaly of a Government servant promoted orappointed to a higher post on or after 1-4-1961 drawing a lowerrate of pay in that post than another Government servant junior tohim in the lower grade and promoted or appointed subsequentlyto another identical post, it has been decided the in such cases thepay of the senior officer in the higher post should be stepped up toa figure equal to the pay as fixed for the junior officer in thathigher post. The stepping up should be done with effect from thedate of promotion or appointment of the junior officer and will besubject to the following conditions, namely: - AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

(a) Both the junior and senior officers should belong to thesame cadre and the posts in which they have been promotedor appointed should be identical and in the same cadre; A

(b) The scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in whichthey are entitled to draw pay should be identical; B

(c) The anomaly should be directly as a result of the applicationof FR-22-C. For example, if even in the lower post the juniorofficer draws from time to time a higher rate of pay than thesenior by virtue of grant of advance increments, the aboveprovisions will not be invoked to step up the pay of the seniorCofficer.”

The orders refixing the pay of the senior officers I accordancewith the above provisions shall be issued under FR-27. The nextincrement of the senior officer will be drawn on completion of therequisite qualifying service with effect from the date of refixationDof pay.[G.I., M.F., 0.M. No.F.2 [78)-E.III (A)/66, dated the 4th February,1966)”.

6. Therefore, it was a case where a junior was drawing more payon account of upgradation under the ACP Scheme and there was anEanomaly and therefore, the pay of senior was required to be stepped up.Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court hasrightly directed the appellants herein to step up the pay of the originalwrit petitioners keeping in view of pay scale which has been granted tothe juniors from the date they have started drawing lesser pay than theirFjuniors. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the HighCourt. No interference of this Court is called for.

7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeals deserve to be dismissed and the same are dismissed,accordingly.

GBibhuti Bhushan Bose

Appeals dismissed.

H