2024 INSC 608 SLP(C) No. 9098 of 2018 etc.etc. Page 1 of 27

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.9098 of 2018)

MAHESHKUMAR CHANDULAL

PATEL & ANR. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF GUJARAT

& ORS ..RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

Civil Appeal No. of 2024

(@ SLP (C) No.9272 of 2018)

WITH

Civil Appeal No. of 2024

(@ SLP (C) No.9974 of 2018)

WITH

Civil Appeal Nos. of 2024

(@ SLP (C) No.4613-4632 of 2019)

WITH

Civil Appeal Nos. of 2024

(@ SLP (C) Nos.5193-5212 of 2019)

SLP(C) No. 9098 of 2018 etc.etc. Page 2 of 27

WITH

Civil Appeal No. of 2024

(@ SLP (C) Nos.5169-5188 of 2019)

WITH

Civil Appeal Nos. of 2024

(@ SLP (C) Nos.8484-8514 of 2019)

AND WITH

Civil Appeal Nos. of 2024

(@ SLP (C) Nos.10247-10261 of 2019)

J U D G M E N T

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals assail the common impugned

order dated 28.12.2017 passed by the Division

Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in LPA No.

765/2017 in Special Civil Application No.

3210/2016 along with other allied appeals. The

LPA was preferred by the respondent State of

Gujarat against the order of Single Judge dated

19.04.2017 directing the State of Gujarat to

remove the anomaly in the pay of the appellants

Petitioners qua their juniors by stepping up their

SLP(C) No. 9098 of 2018 etc.etc. Page 3 of 27

pay. The Division Bench allowed the LPA by the

State and set aside the Single Judge’s order.

FACTUAL MATRIX –

3. The matters pertain to the issue whether or not

the principle of stepping up of pay of an employee

on the basis of the pay of his junior, is applicable

in the present case, where the appellants are put

on a lesser pay scale than the Assistant

Professors who were appointed before them as ad

hoc lecturers and subsequently regularized. The

genesis of controversy goes back to the period of

1984-95 when 111 persons came to be engaged

as Lecturers on ad hoc basis in various

Government Colleges. The University Grants

Commission

1 has framed the Regulations of

1998, inter alia, providing for minimum length of

service of four years for lecturers (Assistant

Professor) with PhD and M. Phil and of six years

for others to be eligible to move to Senior Scale

(i.e., 10000-325-15200) and on completion of

another five years of service, for being eligible to

move to Selection Grade (i.e., 12000-420-18300).

1

UGC, hereinafter

SLP(C) No. 9098 of 2018 etc.etc. Page 4 of 27

The said regulations also provided for counting of

services during ad hoc period for grant of Senior

Scale and Selection Grade Pay.

4. In view of the above regulations, the Education

Department, issued a Government Resolution

dated 17.06.1999 for considering previous

services rendered by the ad hoc lecturers for the

purpose of their placement in Senior

Scale/Selection Grade. Subsequent to the said

Resolution, the Government provided benefits to

some of the ad hoc lecturers subject to conditions

as provided therein. In 2001, some other ad hoc

lecturers [1984-95 Group] approached the High

Court for regularization of their services.

However, the said Special Civil Application was

dismissed against which LPA No. 485 of 2002

was preferred.

5. In the year 2001 itself, the appellants in the

instant case came to be directly selected and

appointed as Assistant Professors by the Gujarat

Public Service Commission

2.

2

GPSC, hereinafter

SLP(C) No. 9098 of 2018 etc.etc. Page 5 of 27

6. On 15.11.2002, the State Government framed

the Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002

3

wherein Rule 21 provides for stepping up of a pay

of Government Employee on the basis of the pay

of his junior, while categorically stipulating that

the provision of the said Rule will apply where the

pay of a junior is fixed higher than his senior on

his promotion to the higher cadre.

7. Alongside, in LPA No. 485 of 2002 preferred by

the ad hoc lecturers for regularization, the

Division Bench of the High Court in its order

dated 11.12.2002 held that the services of the ad

hoc lecturers cannot be regularized contrary to

the Recruitment Rules in the post for which

direct recruits were already selected through

GPSC, but in the facts and circumstances of the

case, directed the ad hoc lecturers to be treated

as a separate class in view of their ad hoc

continuance for nearly a decade and be

considered for absorption in such posts as may

be available with the government. Accordingly,

rest of the ad hoc Assistant Professors came to be

3

2002 Pay Rules, hereinafter

SLP(C) No. 9098 of 2018 etc.etc. Page 6 of 27

selected through GPSC and appointed as regular

Assistant Professors in addition to the ad hoc

lecturers who were already appointed as regular

Assistant Professors in 2001.

8. Further, the ad hoc lecturers who were appointed

as regular Assistant Professors in 2001

approached the High Court by way of Special

Civil Application No. 6597 of 2007 and other

connected matters seeking the relief of counting

ad hoc services for the purpose of senior

scale/selection grade. The High Court disposed

of the said matters by directing the State

Authorities to decide their representation. The

State Government, vide its letter dated

29.03.2008, rejected their claim for counting ad

hoc services for the purpose of grant of senior

scale/selection grade on the ground that their

initial appointment was without the requisite

permission of GPSC.

9. In 2009, the Assistant Professors who got

selected through direct appointment were

extended the benefit of senior scale/selection

grade effective from their date of selection

through GPSC.

SLP(C) No. 9098 of 2018 etc.etc. Page 7 of 27

10. On 30.06.2010, UGC framed Regulations of 2010

treating Career Advancement Scheme as an

avenue for promotion. It may be noted here that

ad hoc services were eligible to be counted for

different recruitments/promotion under Career

Advancement Scheme.

11. The Government vide its resolution dated

03.08.2011 allowed the ad hoc services of 111

Professors [1984-95 Group] to be counted for the

purpose of pay, leave and pension.

Subsequently, a letter dated 27.09.2011 was

written by the Joint Secretary, Education

Department to the Commissioner, Higher

Education, clarifying that the benefit of

Resolution dated 03.08.2011 would not be

extended for the purpose of seniority.

12. Consequently, the State Government, while

referring to its earlier Government Resolution

dated 17.06.1999 and the Government

Resolution dated 02.08.2011, issued the

Government Resolution dated 22.12.2014 for

counting the previous services rendered by the

erstwhile ad hoc lecturers for extending the

benefits of Senior Scale/Selection Grade to the

SLP(C) No. 9098 of 2018 etc.etc. Page 8 of 27

eligible Assistant Professors out of the total

erstwhile ad hoc lecturers [1984-95 Group].

13. Accordingly, the State Government issued an

Order dated 10.08.2015 granting the benefit of

Senior Scale and Selection Grade to 85 eligible

Assistant Professors by considering their

previous ad hoc services. It so happened that by

counting such ad hoc services rendered by such

lecturers [1984-95 Group], all of them were

getting higher pay than the direct appointees

selected by GPSC. Aggrieved by this, a

representation dated 19.10.2015 was submitted

to the Government by the direct appointees to

step up their pay in accordance with Rule 21 of

the 2002 Pay Rules. It also gave rise to filing of

petitions before the Single Judge of the High

Court for appropriate writ, direction and order to

remove the anomaly in their pay resulting from

the office order dated 10.08.2015 and grant

stepping up their pay on the basis of Rule 21. It

is also to be noted here that the State

Government, vide Resolution dated 06.03.2017,

clarified that the Career Advancement Scheme is

not related to promotion and deleted the terms

SLP(C) No. 9098 of 2018 etc.etc. Page 9 of 27

“promotion” occurring in resolutions dated

18.04.2016 and 03.08.2016.

14. The Single Judge of the High Court, vide

judgment dated 19.04.2017, held that Rule 21 is

applicable in the present case based on the

finding that the grant of Senior Scale and

Selection Grade under the Career Advancement

Scheme can be said to be promotion and

therefore, when at the time of grant of Senior

Scale and Selection Grade under the Career

Advancement Scheme, there is anomaly in the

pay scale between the Senior and Junior . It,

accordingly, granted the benefit of stepping up,

holding that the seniors (original Petitioners) are

entitled to pay at par with their junior who were

selected and appointed subsequent to them.

15. The Single Judge also specifically observed that

the original petitioners have not challenged the

Government Resolutions dated 03.08.2011 and

22.12.2014 and the office order dated

10.08.2015, or the action of the Respondents in

granting the Senior Scale and Selection Grade to

the said junior lectures by counting their past

seniority rendered as ad hoc. Therefore, the

SLP(C) No. 9098 of 2018 etc.etc. Page 10 of 27

Court chose to refrain itself from expressing any

opinion on the validity of the said Government

Resolutions. The Single Judge also noted that the

subsequent appointees appear to have been

treated as a separate class by the State for the

purpose of considering their past ad hoc services

as permissible under the UGC Regulations and

such classification is not discriminatory, thus

the ground of equal pay for equal work taken by

the Petitioners therein would not stand. However,

by granting the benefit of Rule 21, the State was

directed to step up the pay of the original

Petitioners.

16. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the Single

Judge, original Respondents-State and others

preferred Letters Patent Appeals before the

Division Bench of the High Court.

17. It was held by the Division Bench of the High

Court that in the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case, Rule 21 of the 2002

Pay Rules shall not be applicable at all since it

applies only where the anomaly so caused must

be the direct result of the application of Rule 21.

The Court proceeded on the footing that grant of

SLP(C) No. 9098 of 2018 etc.etc. Page 11 of 27

Senior Scale and Selection Grade under the

Career Advancement Scheme can be said to be

promotion. It was observed that if the case on

behalf of the original petitioners is accepted and

their pay is fixed at par with all those 85

Assistant Professors who as such rendered their

services as ad hoc lecturers, in that case, all the

original petitioners, who admittedly never

rendered their services as ad hoc lecturers like all

those 85 lecturers and who for the first time

joined their services in 2001, will be granted the

benefit of the earlier years during which they

never rendered their services as ad hoc or

otherwise and/or when they were not even born

in the cadre.

18. The Division Bench also noted that though it is

the specific case on behalf of the original

Petitioners that counting the earlier services of

85 Assistant Professors as ad hoc is absolutely

illegal, still the very Petitioners are asking the

same pay which all those 85 Assistant Professors

are getting by counting their earlier ad hoc

services, meaning thereby, it can be said that the

original Petitioners pray that they may also be

SLP(C) No. 9098 of 2018 etc.etc. Page 12 of 27

granted the benefit of such illegality. There

cannot be negative discrimination. Accordingly,

it was held that the Single Judge had materially

erred in granting the benefit of stepping up under

Rule 21. The Division Bench allowed the appeals

preferred by the State and set aside the order

passed by the Single Judge.

19. Aggrieved by the said order, the original writ

Petitioners are in appeals before us. We have

heard Mr.Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel

appearing for the appellants and Mr.Kanu

Agarwal and Ms .Swati Ghildiyal, learned

counsels appearing for the respondents.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED –

20. Appellants have submitted that it is an

undeniable fact that the subsequent appointees

are junior to the Petitioners. The appellants who

are seniors are seeking pay parity with the junior

members of the cadre. That the instant case

fulfils the requisite conditions for invoking Rule

21 of the 2002 Pay Rules as the said rule does

not contemplate such anomalous situation

where the junior is paid more salary than the

senior. It was argued that the provisions of Rule

SLP(C) No. 9098 of 2018 etc.etc. Page 13 of 27

21 are applicable in the fact-situation of the

present case in view of: -

a. Junior and senior government employees

belong to one and same cadre;

b. Time-scale of pay of the lower post held by

the junior and senior is identical; and,

c. Time-scale of the higher-post to which the

government employee is promoted, is identical.

21. It is also submitted by the appellants that the

State Government has resolved that Career

Advancement Scheme is in the nature of

promotion as indicated in the UGC guideline.

Thus, Rule 21 is applicable and if the junior to

the appellants have been granted the benefit of

Career Advancement Scheme, the appellants

who are senior to them, are entitled to the salary

that they draw when the appellants are granted

the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme.

22. Further, at one point, it is also argued by some

of the appellants that the change from ad hoc to

regular employees should be treated as break in

service and service rendered as ad hoc ought not

to be considered at the time of calculating total

length of service. The Respondents, by passing

SLP(C) No. 9098 of 2018 etc.etc. Page 14 of 27

the aforementioned resolutions, have led to the

present anomaly.

23. Appellants also argued that if juniors get higher

pay than the seniors, and the seniors have no

promotional avenue, their seniority becomes

insignificant. In that case, the very purpose of

making regular appointment through GPSC after

following the due recruitment process would be

frustrated and this could have demoralizing

effect on the working of seniors. It is to avoid

such situation that their pay deserves to be

stepped up to the pay equal to their juniors.

24. Lastly, appellants relied on the following

judgments to supplement weight to their

arguments:

i) Union of India & Ors. v. C.R. Madhava

Murthy & Anr.

4

,

ii) Ashok Ram Parhad & Ors. v. State of

Maharashtra & Ors.

5

,

iii) Gurcharan Singh Grewal v. Punjab SEB

6

4

(2002) 6 SCC 183

5

(2023) SCC Online SC 265

6

(2009) 3 SCC 94

SLP(C) No. 9098 of 2018 etc.etc. Page 15 of 27

25. On the other hand, Respondents submitted that

they are not disputing the fact that the

appellants are senior to the ad hoc appointees

[1984-95 Group] and the same position has also

been accepted by the Single Bench as well as

Division Bench of the High Court. It is submitted

that despite the ad hoc appointees being juniors,

Rule 21 is not applicable in the present case

since the conditions stated in the said rule have

not been fulfilled in the present case as the

anomaly in pay is not a direct result of the

application of the rule. That Clause (v) of Sub-

rule (1) of Rule 21 clearly contemplates that if

even in the lower post the junior Government

employee draws from time to time the higher rate

of pay than the senior by virtue of fixation of the

pay under the normal rule or by grant of advance

increments for any reasons, the same shall not

be applicable to step up the pay of the senior

Government employees.

26. Further, it was submitted that if the argument of

the appellants that Rule 21 is applicable and

consequently, their pay should be stepped up, is

to be accepted, it would amount to giving benefit

SLP(C) No. 9098 of 2018 etc.etc. Page 16 of 27

to the Petitioners and others of the earlier years,

during which admittedly they were not even born

in the cadre and not even serving, unlike the

1984-95 Group.

27. The Respondents relied upon the following

judgments to stress that in similar facts and

circumstances, this Court has held that rule of

stepping up shall not be applicable:

i) Union of India v. R. Swaminathan

7

,

ii) Union of India v. M. Suryanarayana Rao

8

,

iii) Union of India v. Sushil Kumar Paul

9

,

iv) ESI Corporation v. P.K.

Srinivasmurthy

10

,

ISSUE AT HAND –

28. It is not in dispute that the appellants have not

challenged the Resolutions dated 22.12.2014

and 10.08.2015, nor have they made 85

Assistant Professors [1984-95 Group] as party to

the present proceedings. Therefore, it is clear

that it is not the case of the appellants that the

said 85 Assistant Professors have been wrongly

7

(1997) 7 SCC 690

8

(1998) 6 SCC 400

9

(1998) 5 SCC 268

10

(1997) 11 SCC 533

SLP(C) No. 9098 of 2018 etc.etc. Page 17 of 27

granted the benefit, through the said resolutions.

It is also not the case of the appellants that the

said 85 Assistant Professors were not eligible for

getting the said benefits.

29. Further, it is also an admitted fact that the

appellants are seniors to the 1984-95 Group and

is not under dispute. Moreover, even though the

Government, vide resolution dated 06.03.2017,

has clarified that the Career Advancement

Scheme is not related to promotion and therefore

deleted the terms “promotions” occurring in

resolutions dated 18.04.2016 and 03.08.2016,

the High Court had proceeded on the footing that

the grant of Senior Scale and Selection Grade

under the Career Advancement Scheme can be

said to be promotion to elucidate that such an

argument would not help the case of the

Petitioners. So, considering that the said

resolutions of the Government are not under

challenge in the instant case, we will also deal

with the relevant issue at hand presuming that

even if the Career Advancement Scheme is

considered to be promotion.

SLP(C) No. 9098 of 2018 etc.etc. Page 18 of 27

30. The short question that requires determination

in the present case boils down to whether Rule

21 of the 2002 Pay Rules would be applicable in

the facts and circumstances of the present case

or not. Rule 21 is quoted as under:

“21. Stepping up of a pay of a Government

employee on the basis of the pay of his

junior:

(1) Where on regulating initial pay of a

Government employee under above rules-11,

13, 15 to 17 & 19 or on his appointment to a

higher post if his pay is fixed at a lower rate

of pay in that cadre than another

Government employee junior to him in the

lower grade but promoted or appointed

subsequently in such another identical

cadre; the pay of the senior Government

employee on the higher post shall be stepped

up to the figure equal to the pay as fixed for

the junior Government employee in that

higher post with effect from the date of

promotion of the junior Government

employee and it shall be subject to the

following conditions viz:-

i. both, the junior and the senior

Government employees belong to one and the

same cadre and the posts to which they have

been promoted or appointed, shall be

identical and in the same cadre and in the

same line of promotion;

ii. the time-scales of pay of the lower posts

held by the senior and the junior

Government employees shall be identical;

SLP(C) No. 9098 of 2018 etc.etc. Page 19 of 27

iii. the time scales of the higher posts to

which the Government employees are

promoted or appointed shall be identical;

iv. the senior Government employee had he

not been appointed to the higher post earlier

than his junior, he would have been eligible

to draw pay at a stage not lower than that

admissible to his junior in the lower post

immediately prior to the appointment of the

junior Government employee to the higher

post;

iv. the anomaly so caused must be the direct

result of the application of this rule. For

example, if even in the lower post the junior

Government employee draws from time to

time a higher rate of pay than the senior by

virtue of fixation of pay under the normal

rules or by grant of advance increment(s) for

any reason, these provisions shall not be

applicable to step up the pay of the senior

Government employee.

v. the pay of the senior Government employee

so increased due to stepping up of pay shall

not be reduced on reversion of the junior

Government employee nor shall it be

increased again with reference to the pay of

the same officer.

(2) After the re-fixation of pay of the senior

Government employee with reference to the

pay of his junior, the next increment shall

occur to him only after he has rendered the

qualifying service which is necessary for

drawing such increment from the stage at

which his pay had been refixed.”

SLP(C) No. 9098 of 2018 etc.etc. Page 20 of 27

ANALYSIS –

31. A bare reading of the above provision makes it

clear that a strict compliance of the said rule is

necessary. The Rule of stepping up shall apply

only if the conditions specified therein are

fulfilled. Specifically, condition no. (v) of Rule 21

stipulates that the anomaly must be the direct

result of the application of this rule. It further

states by way of an example that, if even in the

lower post the junior Government employee

draws from time to time the higher rate of pay

than the senior by way of fixation of the pay

under the normal rule or by grant of advance

increments for any reasons, the same shall not

be applicable to step up the pay of the senior

Government employee.

32. It is to be noted that in the present case, the

anomaly in pay is not a direct result of Rule 21.

Rather, the alleged anomaly arose because the

85 Assistant Professors [1984-95 Group] have

been granted the benefit of Senior

Scale/Selection Grade Pay by taking into

account the ad hoc services that they have

SLP(C) No. 9098 of 2018 etc.etc. Page 21 of 27

rendered in the past. Therefore, Rule 21 becomes

inapplicable in the present case.

33. Moreover, if the present appeals are allowed,

then it would amount to giving benefit to the

appellants and others of the earlier years, during

which admittedly they were not even born in the

cadre and not even serving. This would go

against the principle of equity. Such a benefit

cannot be claimed by the Petitioners for the years

of service that they have not actually rendered.

34. The case laws cited by the Appellants are not

applicable to the instant case as they are

distinguishable on facts. More specifically,

Madhava Murthy (supra), it was a case where a

junior was drawing more pay on account of

upgradation under the ACP Scheme and there

was an anomaly and therefore, the pay of senior

was required to be stepped up. However, the said

junior had not rendered any ad hoc services,

which is not quite the case at hand. Similarly,

Gurcharan Singh Grewal (supra) was also not a

case involving ad hoc services. It was a matter

wherein the Appellant was merely seeking to step

SLP(C) No. 9098 of 2018 etc.etc. Page 22 of 27

up his pay as was done for another appellant

situated similarly. Lastly, in Ashok Ram Parhad

(supra), the grant of monetary benefit was not

under contention. Rather, that matter was with

regards to the inter se seniority which is not a

point of dispute in the instant case. Hence, none

of the case laws relied on by the Appellants help

their case.

35. It is also befitting here to briefly refer to the

relevant judgments by this Court rendered

earlier on the subject-matter, which have been

relied by the Respondents:

36. The case of R. Swaminathan (supra) is a matter

with very similar factual matrix wherein certain

employees claiming seniority were claiming step

up if their juniors are getting more pay on

account of their ad hoc services being counted.

Certain junior employees had officiated on a

promotional post on an ad hoc basis due to

administrative exigencies., due to which their

pay on their regular promotion was fixed higher

than their senior. The Court held as under:

“10. According to the aggrieved employees,

this has resulted in an anomaly, Government

SLP(C) No. 9098 of 2018 etc.etc. Page 23 of 27

Order bearing No. F.2(78)-E.III(A)/66 dated

4-2-1966 has been issued for removal of

anomaly by stepping up of pay of a senior on

promotion drawing less pay than his junior.

It provides as follows:

“10. Removal of anomaly by stepping up of

pay of senior on promotion drawing less pay

than his junior.—(a) As a result of application

of FR 22-C.—In order to remove the anomaly

of a government servant promoted or

appointed to a higher post on or after 1-4-

1961 drawing a lower rate of pay in that post

than another government servant junior to

him in the lower grade and promoted or

appointed subsequently to another identical

post, it has been decided that in such cases

the pay of the senior officer in the higher post

should be stepped up to a figure equal to the

pay as fixed for the junior officer in that

higher post. The stepping up should be done

with effect from the date of promotion or

appointment of the junior officer and will be

subject to the following conditions, namely:

(a) Both the junior and senior officers should

belong to the same cadre and the posts in

which they have been promoted or appointed

should be identical and in the same cadre;

(b) the scale of pay of the lower and higher

posts in which they are entitled to draw pay

should be identical;

(c) the anomaly should be directly as a result

of the application of FR 22-C. For example, if

even in the lower post the junior officer draws

from time to time a higher rate of pay than

the senior by virtue of grant of advance

increments, the above provisions will not be

invoked to step up the pay of the senior

officer.

SLP(C) No. 9098 of 2018 etc.etc. Page 24 of 27

The orders refixing the pay of the senior

officers in accordance with the above

provisions shall be issued under FR 27. The

next increment of the senior officer will be

drawn on completion of the requisite

qualifying service with effect from the date of

refixation of pay.”

As the Order itself states, the stepping up is subject

to three conditions: (1) Both the junior and the senior

officers should belong to the same cadre and the

posts in which they have been promoted should be

identical and in the same cadre; (2) the scales of pay

of the lower and higher posts should be identical;

and (3) anomaly should be directly as a result of the

application of Fundamental Rule 22-C which is now

Fundamental Rule 22(I)(a)(1). We are concerned

with the last condition. The difference in the pay

of a junior and a senior in the cases before us is

not as a result of the application of Fundamental

Rule 22(I)(a)(1). The higher pay received by a

junior is on account of his earlier officiation in

the higher post because of local officiating

promotions which he got in the past. Because of

the proviso to Rule 22 he may have earned

increments in the higher pay scale of the post to

which he is promoted on account of his past

service and also his previous pay in the

promotional post has been taken into account in

fixing his pay on promotion. It is these two

factors which have increased the pay of the

juniors. This cannot be considered as an anomaly

requiring the stepping up of the pay of the

seniors.

11. The Office Memorandum dated 4 -11-1993,

Government of India, Department of Personnel

and Training, has set out various instances where

stepping up of pay cannot be done. It gives, inter

alia, the following instances which have come to

SLP(C) No. 9098 of 2018 etc.etc. Page 25 of 27

the notice of the Department with a request for

stepping up of pay. These are:

“(a) Where a senior proceeds on

Extraordinary Leave which results 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

have been promoted earlier to the higher

grade:

(b) If a senior foregoes/refuses promotion

leading to his junior being

promoted/appointed to the higher post

earlier, the junior draws higher pay than the

senior. The senior may be on deputation

while the junior avails of the ad hoc

promotion in the cadre. The increased pay

drawn by a junior either due to ad hoc

officiating/regular service rendered in the

higher posts for periods earlier than the

senior, cannot, therefore, be an anomaly in

strict sense of the term.

(c) If a senior joins the higher post later than

the junior for whatsoever reasons, whereby

he draws less pay than the junior, in such

cases the senior cannot claim stepping up of

pay on a par with the junior.

(d) ***”

There are also other instances cited in the

Memorandum. The Memorandum makes it

clear that in such instances a junior drawing

more pay than his senior will not constitute

an anomaly and, therefore, stepping up of

pay will not be admissible. The increased

pay drawn by a junior because of ad hoc

officiating or regular service rendered by

him in the higher post for periods earlier

SLP(C) No. 9098 of 2018 etc.etc. Page 26 of 27

than the senior is not an anomaly because

pay does not depend on seniority alone

nor is seniority alone a criterion for

stepping up of pay.

13. The employees in question are,

therefore, not entitled to have their pay

stepped up under the said Government

Order because the difference in the pay

drawn by them and the higher pay drawn

by their juniors is not as a result of any

anomaly; nor is it a res ult of the

application of Fundamental Rule

22(I)(a)(1).”

37. Similarly, in the case of Suryanarayana Rao

(supra), the Respondent was promoted and he

was senior to two other persons, yet his pay was

fixed at a lesser scale whereas the pay of the said

two persons was fixed on a higher scale for the

reason that the said juniors were promoted

earlier to the promotional posts on an ad hoc

basis. The Court had relied on the ratio laid down

in R. Swaminathan (supra) and refused to

grant the relief of stepping up.

CONCLUSION –

38. In light of the facts and circumstances of the

case(s), the discussion laid out above

surrounding Rule 21 and a perusal of the

SLP(C) No. 9098 of 2018 etc.etc. Page 27 of 27

authorities elucidated above, we do not find any

merit in the contentions of the appellants.

39. We, thus, hold that Rule 21 of the 2002 Pay Rules

is inapplicable in the instant case(s) and no relief

can be granted to the appellants. The present

appeals deserve to be dismissed. It is ordered

accordingly.

40. Pending applications (if any) are disposed of.

……………………………………J.

(VIKRAM NATH)

……………………………………J.

(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA )

NEW DELHI

AUGUST 14, 2024