MEHNGA RAM AND ANR. versus O.P. SAXENA ETC.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 695 · Decided: 14-07-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

_) 
• 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
O.P. SAXENA ETC. 
JULY 14, 1997 
[J.S. VERMA, CJ., SUJATA V. MANOHAR 
AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.) 
Service Law : 
A 
B 
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 
np. By a presidential decision given under Rule 1316 the aforesaid condi-
tions were further explained. [ 698-F -G; 699-B] 
F 
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 categ
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.