The High Court’s recent ruling on addressing pay disparities between senior and junior employees through the stepping up of salaries reflects a significant legal analysis. The court’s emphasis on applying FR 22 and the government’s directives to rectify anomalies in pay scales highlights a commitment to fairness and equality in the workplace. This blog delves deeper into the court’s legal reasoning and the implications of ensuring equitable remuneration for all employees.
Facts
- Union of India introduced the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP Scheme) on 09.08.1999.
- Shri C.K. Satish and Shri B.S. Srikanth were granted upgradation under the ACP Scheme.
- Original writ petitioners submitted a representation for stepping up their salaries to be at par with their juniors.
- Original writ petitioners filed O.A. Nos. 813 & 814/2014 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru.
- The original writ petitioners were promoted to the post of Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs on 02.07.2000.
- Respondents filed the present writ petitions before the High Court challenging the Tribunal’s order dated 04.01.2016.
- Tribunal rejected the applications in the common order dated 04.01.2016.
- Persons lower in the upgradation list started drawing higher pay due to ACP Scheme.
- FR 22 allows for stepping up of pay and removal of anomaly by stepping up the pay of a senior on promotion drawing lesser pay than his junior.
- The High Court has allowed the writ petitions and directed the appellants to step up the pay of the respondents according to the pay scale granted to the juniors from the date they started drawing lesser pay than their juniors.
Also Read: Ruling on Circumstantial Evidence in Murder Case
Arguments
- The ASG argued that the High Court did not properly consider the ACP Scheme and its purpose.
- The original writ petitioners had already been promoted to the post of Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs.
- The purpose of the ACP Scheme/MACP Scheme is to address stagnation and provide monetary benefits, not necessarily a promotional post.
- The grievance of the writ petitioners was about pay scale anomalies where their juniors were receiving higher salaries.
- The High Court correctly considered FR 22 and the Government’s order on removing pay anomalies by stepping up the senior’s pay to match the junior’s pay in the higher post.
Also Read: Challenging Legal Presumptions in Negotiable Instrument Cases
Analysis
- The Union of India and others have expressed dissatisfaction with the common judgment and order passed by the High Court.
- The appellants have raised various grounds for challenging the impugned judgment.
- The analysis focuses on the grievances raised by the appellants against the High Court’s decision.
- The appellants have preferred the present appeals seeking to challenge the decision of the High Court.
- The case involved a junior drawing more pay due to upgradation under the ACP Scheme, creating an anomaly.
- The pay of the senior employee needed to be stepped up to address this imbalance.
- This step was taken to rectify the disparity and ensure fair pay for the senior employee.
Also Read: Legal Analysis Critique in High Court’s Quashing Order
Decision
- Respondents were appointed as Lower Division Clerk in 1973 and promoted to Upper Division Clerk in 1976.
- High Court directed appellants to step up pay of respondents in line with their juniors’ pay scale.
- High Court’s decision was deemed appropriate and no interference from this Court is warranted.
- The appeals are dismissed accordingly.
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA Vs. C.R. MADHAVA MURTHY (2022 INSC 397)
Case Number: C.A. No.-002087-002088 / 2022
