Case Law Details
Union of India & Ors. Vs Income Tax Gazetted Officer Association Rajasthan & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
SC Dismisses Union’s Plea Because No Ground Found Against Pay Step-Up Relief for Senior Employees; SC Refuses to Interfere Because Rajasthan HC Had Already Followed Earlier Karnataka and Delhi Rulings; SC Dismisses SLP Because Tribunal Correctly Applied Judicial Discipline in Pay Anomaly Case; SC Confirms No Interference in Senior-Junior Pay Dispute Because Earlier Judgments Covered Same Issue
The Supreme Court of India dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Union of India and others against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the matter concerning stepping up of pay for members of the Income Tax Gazetted Officer Association. The Supreme Court condoned the delay but stated that it did not find any good ground to entertain the petition. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed, and all pending applications also stood disposed of.
Read HC Judgment in this case: Pay Stepping-Up Claim Allowed Because Juniors Received Higher Salary Than Seniors: Rajasthan HC
The matter originated from a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court challenging the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jaipur. The respondents had earlier filed an Original Application before the Tribunal alleging that the Department failed to grant the benefit of stepping up of pay to respondent No.2 and other members of the association.
Before the Tribunal, the applicants relied upon earlier judgments 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 had subsequently been upheld by the Delhi High Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Rastogi. The Tribunal observed that the controversy had already been decided in favour of similarly placed employees through these earlier decisions.
The Tribunal stated that it was bound by judicial discipline and therefore disposed of the Original Application on the same terms as those adopted in the earlier judgments. It held that where a senior employee earned advance increment on passing a departmental examination before a junior, but the junior later began drawing higher salary after passing the same examination, the senior employee would be entitled to stepping up of pay at par with the junior.
The Tribunal clarified that although the principle was accepted, the entitlement of individual employees would still remain subject to verification by the Department upon submission of applications. The Tribunal directed the respondents to remove the 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. It also noted that the issue of pay parity between seniors and juniors was under consideration before the Supreme Court, and therefore the directions would remain subject to any future orders passed by 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 separate applications for redressal of grievances.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that the same issue had already been considered by the Delhi High Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Rastogi, where the writ petition filed by the Union of India had been dismissed and directions were issued for grant of stepping up of pay.
After hearing both parties and examining the record, the Rajasthan High Court observed that the issue had already been considered by the Karnataka High Court and Delhi High Court and that those decisions had not been challenged before the Supreme Court, as informed by counsel for the parties. The High Court agreed with the view taken by the Tribunal and held that no case for interference was made out. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
The Union of India thereafter approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition. The Supreme Court condoned the delay but dismissed the petition after observing that no good ground existed to entertain it.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. We do not find any good ground to entertain this petition.
The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Author Bio
