Case Law Details
Union of India Vs Income Tax Gazetted Officer Association (Rajasthan High Court)
The Rajasthan High Court heard a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jaipur. The dispute related to the claim of stepping up of pay by respondent No.2 and other members of the Income Tax Gazetted Officer Association. The respondents had approached the Tribunal alleging that the Department failed to grant them pay parity with their juniors.
Read SC Judgment in this case: SC Upholds Pay Parity Relief as Juniors Drew Higher Salary Than Seniors After Departmental Exam
Before the Tribunal, the applicants relied upon earlier decisions of the Karnataka High Court in Union of India & Anr. Vs. Gautam Kumar & Ors. and the Principal Bench of CAT, Delhi in Akhilesh Kumar Rastogi Vs. UOI & Ors., which was later upheld by the Delhi High Court. The Tribunal observed that the controversy had already been decided in favour of similarly placed employees in those cases.
The Tribunal stated that judicial discipline required it to follow the earlier judgments. It held that where a senior employee earned an advance increment by passing a departmental examination before a junior, but the junior later started drawing higher salary after earning the same increment, the senior would be entitled to stepping up of pay to match the junior’s salary. However, the Tribunal clarified that although the principle was being accepted, each individual employee’s entitlement would still be subject to verification by the Department upon submission of applications.
Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the respondents to remove the pay anomaly and step up the salary of the applicants at par with their juniors within four months from receipt of the certified copy of the order. The Tribunal also noted that the broader issue of pay parity between seniors and juniors was pending consideration before the Supreme Court, and therefore its directions would remain subject to any future orders of the Apex Court.
Before the Rajasthan High Court, counsel for the Union of India argued that members of the association could not collectively claim stepping up of pay and that each employee was required to file a separate application for redressal of grievances.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submitted that the Delhi High Court had already considered the same issue in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Rastogi and had dismissed the Union of India’s writ petition while directing grant of stepping up of pay benefits.
After hearing both parties and examining the record, the Rajasthan High Court noted that the issue had already been considered by the Karnataka High Court and the Delhi High Court, and that those decisions had not been challenged further before the Supreme Court. Agreeing with the view taken by the Tribunal, the High Court held that no case for interference was made out.
The writ petition filed by the Union of India was therefore dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur (hereafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’).
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed Original Application (OA) before the Tribunal with regard to their grievance against the Department as the Department has failed to give benefit of stepping up of pay to the respondent No.2 as well as to other members of the association. The Tribunal while allowing the Original Application relied upon the order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru as well as the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principle Bench at Delhi. The Tribunal while considering the matter in para 4, 9, 10 & 11 has held as under:-
“4. The applicants have relied upon the order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Gautam Kumar & Ors. (WP No.49498/2019 (S-CAT) and order dated 22.12.2022 passed by Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Akhilesh Kumar Rastogi Vs. UOI & Ors. (OA No.1139/2022), which was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide its order 15.01.2024 passed in W.P. (C) No.12653/2023 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Rastogi). The applicants state that vide aforesaid orders, the present controversy has been decided in favour of the applicants.
9. However, we are bound by judicial discipline, as such, we dispose off the present Original Application on the same terms as has been adjudicated in the above judgments/orders cited by the applicants.
10. Therefore, the applicants are held entitled to step up their pay at par with that of their respective junior. Since the present Original Applicant has been filed by the Association, we want to clarify that while it is the principle that the senior who earned advance increment on passing of the departmental examination prior to his junior and his junior earning advance increment on passing of the same departmental examination later in time; results in the junior drawing more salary than the senior on this account then the senior is entitled to step up of his pay and draw salary at par with that of his junior, is being allowed, the facts and entitlement of individuals, who would submit their applications to the respondents, shall be subject to the verification by the respondents.
11. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to remove the anomaly and step up the salary of the applicants at par with their junior(s), within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It has been brought to our notice that the issue of pay parity of seniors with that of their juniors, earned by juniors in their individual capacity, is under the consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, our directions to the respondents in this case are subject to any directions / orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court on this controversy.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that members of the association cannot claim the stepping up of their pay, as they have to file separate applications for redressal of their grievance.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the issue involved in this writ petition has also been considered by the Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Rastogi1, wherein the Court has dismissed the writ petition filed on behalf of Union of India and directed them for granting the benefit of stepping up of pay.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Since, the issue has already been considered by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru and Delhi as referred above, which has not been further challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court as informed by learned counsel for the parties.
7. We are agreeing with the view taken by the Tribunal and no case is made out for interference.
8. The writ petition is dismissed, accordingly.
Note:
1 2024 SCC OnLine Del 284
Author Bio
