Holding

Stepping up of pay under Rule 1316 is not applicable where the officers belong to different cadres and were promoted from different feeder posts, as the codal conditions are not satisfied.

Summary

The respondents, promoted from the running cadre (Driver Grade‑C) to the stationary post of Loco Supervisor before 1 January 1986, claimed that their pay should be stepped up to match that of a senior colleague, Sh. P.N. Kareer, who was promoted after the revised pay scales came into force and therefore received a higher salary. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the stepping‑up, but the Supreme Court held that the principle of stepping up under Rule 1316 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code applies only when both officers belong to the same cadre and are promoted to identical posts, conditions that were not satisfied because the senior officer came from a different feeder post (Driver Grade‑A) and a different cadre. Consequently, the Tribunal’s order was set aside. The Court clarified that the Ministry of Railways’ letters made the stepping‑up subject to codal conditions, and those conditions were not met in this case. The appeals were allowed and no costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether the principle of stepping up of pay under Rule 1316 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code applies when the senior and junior officers belong to different cadres and are promoted from different feeder posts.
Whether the codal conditions stipulated in the Railway Board’s circulars and the Code are fulfilled in the present facts.

Subjects

stepping up of payRule 1316Indian Railway Establishment Codecadresenioritypromotionrunning staffstationary staffpay fixationtribunal

Judgment

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. A
_)
v.
O.P. SAXENA ETC.

JULY 14, 1997

[J.S. VERMA, CJ., SUJATA V. MANOHAR B
AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.)

Service Law :

Indian Railway Establishment Code-Rule 1316---Principle of Stepping C
up of pay not applicable when persons are promoted to the same post from
different feeder posts with its own separate seniority lists and pay scales.

The short question in this appeal from the judgment of the Tribunal,
was whether the respondent who was promoted from a stationary post,
• could get the benefit of stepping up of pay based on the pay of another D
colleague promoted from a running post, though both started work in the
same cadre.

Allowing the appeals, this Court

HELD: 1. The decision of the Tribunal directing stepping up of pay of E
the respondents herein was not correct. It had been clarified by the ministry
of Railways in its letter dated 14th September 1990 that the principle of
stepping up referred to .in its earlier letter of 16th August 1988 was "subject
to codal conditions being fulfilled". The principle of stepping up of pay is
contained in Rule 1316 of Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol. II which
also contains conditions which have to be followed while ordering stepping F
np. By a presidential decision given under Rule 1316 the aforesaid condi-
tions were further explained. [698-F -G; 699-B]

2. It is not in dispute that as driver Grade-C, K was senior to and was
drawing more salary than the respondents. Thereafter while K remained in G
the cadre of running staff the respondents by choice opted for being
promoted to the supervisory cadre and posted as Loco Supervisors. There·
after Kon the one hand and the respondents on the other belonged to.two
- different cadres having their seniority list. The pay of K was fixed according
to the scales which were approved for running staff including the running
allowance. K was drawing more salary as Driver Grade-A, just before his H _
695
696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A appointment as Loco Supervisor, than the respondents. With the revision of
pay scales with effect from 1st January, 1986 K's pay was fixed at Rs. 2360 as
on 1st January 1986 while the salary of the first respondent on the stationary
post which he was holding was Rs. 2300. The sources of recruitment to the
post of Loco Supervisor in the case of K vis-a-vis the respondents being
different the principle of stepping up of pay would not arise. Whereas the
· B respondents were promoted as Loco Supervisors from Driver Grade- C, K
on the other hand was placed in the cadre of Loco Supervisor after being .,
promoted from the post of Driver Grade-A. When the feeder posts of Kand
that of the other respondents were different the applicability of the principle
of stepping up cannot apply. The pay of K had to be fixed with reference to
C what he was last drawing as Driver Grade-A, a post which was never held by
any of the .respondents. Therefore the Tribunal was not justified in applying
the principle of stepping up and in directing the re-fixation of the pay of the
respondents. [699-E-H; 700-A-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8852 of
D 1996. ..
WITH

C.A. 4662/97, 4663/97 and 4664/97.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.5.95 of the Central Ad-
E ministrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 462 of 1994.

P.P. Malhotra, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Wasim Qadri, Ms. Anubha Jain,
Ms. Smitha Inna, Arvind Kr. Sharma, Ms. B. Sunita Rao, A.D.N. Rao, Ms.
Anil Katiyar, Y.P. Mahajan, Rajiv Nanda for C.V.S. Rao, Gopal Singh, G.
F Prakash, Ms. S. Janani, Shree Pal Singh, G. Prabhakar and T.V. Ratnam
for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KIRPAL, J.

G Civil Appeal No. 8852/96 with C.A. Nos. 4662/97 And 4663/97 (arising out
of SLP (©)No. 12462/97 and SLP ©No. 24606/96

Leave granted.

The issue which arises in these appeals from the orders of the Central
H Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, relates to the stepping up of the pay of
U.0.1. v. O.P.SAXENA[KIRPAL,J.) 697

the respondents who were promoted as Loco Running Supervisor prior to A
.• 1st January, 1986 vis-a-vis the pay of one Sh. P.N. Kareer who was
promoted to that post after 1st January, 1986 but was drawing higher pay
than the respondents.

As the questions of facts and law in these appeals are the same,
therefore, we propose to dispose of these appeals by a common judgment. B
In the Railway Administration there is a category of staff called the
running staff which is involved in the running of trains. It includes drivers,
guards, firemen, shunters and brakesmen. The running staff are entitled to
an allowance called the 'running allowance' in view oI the nature of their
duties pertaining to the running of trains. The pay scales of the running C
staff are considered to be incommensurable with the ordeal of their duty
and, therefore, to balance that element the running allowance is given to
encourage greater efficiency in the running staff.

The locomotive drivers are eligible for promotion, amongst other D
posts, to those of Loco Supervisors. The aforesaid Sh. Kareer and the
respondents, at one time, were holding the running post of Driver Grade-C.
Sh. Kareer had been promoted as Driver Grade-C on 29th August, 1961
and was placed in the grade of Rs. 150 - 240 and the respondents had been
promoted and appointed as Drivers Grade-C from a date subsequent to
29th August, 1961. In other words, Sh. Kareer was senior to the respon- E
dents as Driver Grade-C.

The respondents then opted to be promoted to the 'stationary post'
of Loco Supervisor directly from the post of Driver Grade-C which they
were holding. Their promotion was made prior to 1st January, 1986 and
they were placed in the grade of Rs. 550-750. F

On
Sh. Kareer chose to remain in the running staff. 1st January, 1981
he was promoted as Driver Grade-B in the scale of Rs. 425- 640 and his
pay was fixed at Rs. 580. Thereafter on 28th November, 1984 Sh. Kareer
was promoted as Driver Grade-A in the scale of Rs. 550-700. With effect G
from 1st January, 1986 revised pay scales came into existence as a result
of the fourth pay commission report. At that time the respondents were
working on the stationary post of Loco Supervisors while Sh. Kareer was
working on the running post of Driver Grade-A.

The pay of running staff on promotion to Loco Supervisor's post is H
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A fixed under Rule 1316 of Indian Railway Establishment Code after fixation
of an additional component of thirty per cent of basic pay last drawn in
the running cadre, which represents the pay element in the running al-
lowance. On introduction of the revised pay scales with effect from 1st
January, 1986 this thirty per cent addition in the pay element of the running
B allowance increased which resulted in higher fixation of pay of running staff
appointed as Loco Supervisors after 1st January, 1986 than those appointed
as Loco Supervisors before 1st January, 1986. Therefore, when Sh. Kareer
was appointed as a Loco Supervisor, his pay as Loco Supervisor was fixed
after taking into account the aforesaid thirty per cent addition which
resulted in his getting higher pay than the respondents. It appears that in
C the pay of respondent - O.P. Saxena was stepped up but when the depart-
ment discovered that the benefit had been wrongly given to him his pay
was re-fixed and recoveries were made of the excess amount paid to him.
Sh. O.P. Saxena challenged the aforesaid decision by filing OA No. 462 of
1994 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur. O.A. Nos.
D 191/94 and 768/93 were filed by the other respondents seeking the benefit .
of stepping up.

The Tribunal first decided the case of Sh. O.P. Saxena and came to
the conclusion that stepping up of the pay was admissible to him. It did
not accept the contention of the appellant that Sh. Kareer was senior to
E the respondent - O.P. Saxena and, furthermore, on a correct interpretation
of the Railway Board's letter dated 16th August, 1988 the principle of
stepping up was not applicable. Following that decision relief was given by
the Tribunal to the other respondents herein and, while allowing OA Nos.
768/93 and 191/94 the appellant was directed to step up their pay keeping
the pay of Sh. Kareer in view.
F
In our opinion, the decision of the Tribunal directing stepping up of
the pay c~ the respondents herein was not correct. It had been clarified by
the Ministry of Railways in its letter dated 14th September, 1990 that the
principle of stepping up referred to in its earlier letter of 16th August, 1988
G was "subject to codal conditions being fulfilled". The principle of stepping
up of pay is contained in Rule 1316 of Indian Railway Establishment Code
Vol. II which also contains which have to be followed while ordering
stepping up. Two of the conditions contained therein are :

H (a) Both the senior and junior officers should belong to the

/
U.O.I. v. O.P.SAXENA[KIRPAL,J.] 699

same cadre and the post in which they have been A
promoted on a regular basis should be identical in the
same cadre;

(b) The scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which
they are entitled to draw should be identical.
B
By a Presidential decision given under Rule 1316 the aforesaid
conditions were further explained as follows :

"If as a result of application of the proviso to and the exception
below Rule 1313 (F.R. 22) the pay of the junior is more than that C
of the senior in the lower post, there would be no question of
stepping up the pay of the senior in the higher post. If despite the
application of the proviso to and the exception below Rule 1313
(F.R. 22) the junior's pay is less than that of the senior and on
• promotion the former's pay happens to be greater than the pay of
latter by virtue of the provisions of Rule 1316 (F.R. 22 C), stepping D
up will have to be done with reference to the actual pay drawn by
the junior in the higher post."

It is not in dispute that as driver Grade-C Sh. Kareer was senior to
and was drawing more salary than the respondents. Thereafter while Sh.
Kareer remained in the cadre of running staff the respondents by choice E
opted for being promoted to the supervisory cadre and posted as Loco
Supervisors. Thereafter Sh. Kareer on the one hand and the respondents
on the other belonged to two different cadres having their own seniority
list. The pay of Sh. Kareer was fixed according to the scales which were
approved for the running staff including the running allowance. Sh. Kareer F
was drawing more salary as Driver Grade-A, just before his appointment
as a Loco Supervisor, than the respondents. With the revision of pay scales
with effect from 1st January, 1986, Sh. Kareer's pay was fixed at Rs. 2360
as on 1st January, 1986 while the salary of respondent - O.P. Saxena on the
stationary post which he was holding was Rs. 2300. The sources of the G
recruitment to the post of Loco Supervisor in the case of Sh. Kareer vis-a-
vis the respondents being different the principle of stepping up of pay
would not arise. Whereas the respondents were promoted as Loco Super-
visors from Driver Grade-C, Sh. Kareer on the other hand was placed in
the cadre of Loco Supervisor after being promoted from the post of Driver
Grade-A. When the feeder posts of Sh. Kareer and that of the other H
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A respondents were different the applicability of the principle of stepping up ~

cannot apply. The pay of Sh. Kareer had to be fixed with reference to what
he was last drawing as Driver Grade-A, a post which was never held by
any of the respondents. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was not
justified in applying the principle of stepping up and in directing the
re-fixation of the pay of the respondents.
B
For the aforesaid reasons the appeals are allowed. The orders dated
18th May, 1995 and 4th October, 1995 of the Tribunal in OA Nos. 462 of
1994, 191 of 1994 and 768 00993 are set aside. There will be no order as
to costs.
c Civil Appeal No. 4664/97 @ S.L.P. © No. 12463/97.
Leave granted.

The question involved in this case is similar to the one in Civil Appeal

D
No. 8852 of 1996. The only difference is that the respondent in this appeal .
claimed stepping up of his salary by contending that his junior one Sh. S.K.
Sood was getting higher pay than him.

The respondent was appointed as a Fireman Grade-I in the running
cadre in the year 1949. He was promoted to the post of Driver Grade-C 0:-
E and on 27th June, 1965 he was promote.d to the stationary job as ALF.
Thereafter he was appointed to various stationary posts and was allowed
the benefit in fixation of pay in the respective posts and grades. His salary
as on 1st January, 1986, after the fourth Pay Commission report, was fixed
at Rs. 2900. He Ultimately retired from service from 31st March, 1988 on
which date he was drawing a salary of Rs. 3050.
F
Sh. S.K. Sood, with reference to whom the respondent made a claim
for stepping up of his pay, was initially appointed as boy fireman in the
year 1948 in Ferozpur Division, whereas the respondent was appointed at
Lucknow Division. Sh. Sood was promoted as Driver Grade-C, then Driver
Grade-B and lastly Driver Grade-A. He was promoted to the stationary
G
post of CFJ with effect from 5th May 1977 in the grade of Rs. 700-900. As
in the running cadre he was drawing the maximum of Rs. 700 in the grade, "
his pay on the stationary post was fixed at Rs. 900.

As the respondent had been posted on the stationary post from the
H running post of Driver Grade-C, while Sh. Sood had been posted on the
U.O.I. v. O.P.SAXENA[KIRPAL,J.] 701

~ stationary post from the, running post of Driver Grade-A, this had resulted A
in Sh. Sood getting higher pay than the respondent.

The respondent did not make any claim for stepping up of his salary
as long as he was in service. Having retired on 31st March, 1988, in July,
1991 he filed an application before,the Central Administration Tribunal for
stepping up of his pay to bring it at par with that of Sh. Sood and also to B
.i > give him consequential benefits.

The Tribunal by the impugned judgment allowed the application and
directed that the pay of the respondent should be stepped up and he should
be given all the consequential benefits.
c
Apart from the fact that the application of the respondent before the
Central Administrative Tribunal which was filed in July 1991 was highly
belated, the position in this case is no different from that of Union of India
and Ors. v. O.P. Saxena. In this case also the respondent and Sh. Sood were
appointed to the stationary post from two different sources. The respon- D
dent was Driver Grade-C when he was so appointed while Sh. Sood was
appointed to the stationary post from the post of Driver Grade-A. There-
fore, for the reasons contained in judgment in CA No. 8852 of 1996 the
order of the Tribunal has to be set aside.

We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order dated 27th E
January, 1993 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench with
the result that OA No. 322 of 1981 filed by the respondent stands dis-
missed. There will be no order as to costs.

1.M.A. Appeals allowed.