The petitioners were directed that the respondents shall not effect recovery of the amount paid to them on account of stepping up of their pay, despite a Supreme Court ruling against such stepping up, following a prior order by this Court.
Directing that the respondents shall not effect recovery of the amount paid to the petitioners on stepping up of their pay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDARAM
WRIT PETITION No.22988 OF 2000
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
The petitioners herein were extended the benefit of stepping up of their pay on the ground that their juniors were drawing more pay than them. However, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA v. R. SWAMINATHAN[1] , the respondents proposed to recover the amount covered by the stepping up pay. The petitioners approached the Hyderabad Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.397 of 2000. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. through order dated 15-03-2000. Hence, this writ petition.
2. Heard Sri S. Rahul Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. It is, no doubt, true that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an employee is not entitled to stepping up of his pay on the ground that his junior are drawing a higher scale of pay than him.
4. Even while laying that principle, the Supreme Court did not direct that the amount paid on such basis must be recovered.
5. In W.P. No.18656 of 1998, a Division Bench of this Court through its order dated 10-10-2007, directed that the amount paid to the petitioners therein on account of stepping up of their pay shall not
be recovered.
6. Following the same, the Writ Petition is allowed directing that the respondents shall not effect recovery of the amount paid to the petitioners on stepping up of their pay. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. The Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this writ petition shall stand disposed of.
_______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
CHALLA KODANDARAM, J
September 25, 2013. PV
[1] 1997 (7) SCC 690
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents can recover the amount paid to the petitioners on the ground of stepping up of their pay in light of the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. R. Swaminathan.
Whether a previous order of this Court prohibiting recovery of such pay must be followed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India v. R. SwaminathanReferred¶6
UNION OF INDIA v. R. SWAMINATHAN [1]
W.P. No.18656 of 1998Followed¶5
The petitioners
The respondents
L. Narasimha Reddy
Challa Kodandaram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
