[2025:RJ-JP:9530-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1645/2019 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Irrigation, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Appellants Versus 1. Anand Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Trilok Chand Gupta, Working As Assistant Engineer, Office Of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Field Testing And Quality Control Division-Ii, Bikaner. R/o Iii-8 Kothi No. 38, Command Area, Development Quarters, Civil Lines, Bikaner. 2. Presiding Officer, Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG assisted by Mr. Hardik Singh and Mr. Avinash Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nikhil Kumawat for Mr. Harendra Neel HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 04/03/2025 1. The appeal is heard finally. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants would argue that the respondent - Anand Kumar Gupta was not entitled to benefit of stepping up of pay on the ground that he was senior to Prabhu Dayal Chhabra because Prabhu Dayal Chhabra was inducted into service on 17.06.1978 and he completed 18 years of service on [2025:RJ-JP:9530-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-1645/2019] 17.06.1996 and therefore, was granted higher pay scale of Rs.2200-4000/- and fixed at Rs. 2,425/- per month, which was prevalent on the date of revision of pay scale w.e.f. 01.09.1996. Even though, Anand Kumar Gupta was senior in the seniority list, Anand Kumar Gupta completed 18 years of his service only on 14.12.1996. On the date of revision of pay scale, i.e. 01.09.1996, Anand Kumar Gupta was continuing in the existing pay without conferral of benefit of higher pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 as he had not completed 18 years of service. In such circumstances, the claim of stepping up of pay was misconceived and only on the basis that Anand Kumar Gupta was senior to Prabhu Dayal Chhabra, benefit of stepping up of pay could not be granted by the Tribunal. This crucial aspect was not properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supporting the order passed by the learned Single Judge would submit that the benefit of stepping up of pay has been accorded to remove anomaly arising on account of revision of pay scale w.e.f. 01.09.1996 for the reason that Anand Kumar Gupta was placed at higher position in the seniority list published by the State. As the benefit of revision of pay scale w.e.f. 01.09.1996 was granted without benefit of grant of higher pay scale upon completion of 18 years of service, stepping up of pay had become necessary to ensure that junior employee does not get higher salary than the senior one. 4. The factual aspect of the case which are not in dispute, are that while Prabhu Dayal Chhabra joined as J.En. (Diploma) on 17.06.1978, Anand Kumar Gupta joined on 14.12.1978. It, [2025:RJ-JP:9530-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-1645/2019] however, appears that Anand Kumar Gupta completed AMIE on 03.03.1984 and was fixed at Rs.820/- per month in the pay scale of Rs. 640-1180, whereas, Prabhu Dayal Chhabra completed AMIE after one year i.e. on 23.03.1985. 5. It is not in dispute that Anand Kumar Gupta was senior to Prabhu Dayal Chhabra. The order passed by the Tribunal clearly records this fact that as per the seniority list published by the State, Anand Kumar Gupta was placed at serial No.993 whereas Prabhu Dayal Chhabra was placed at serial No.1017. 6. It is quite apparent that the benefit of higher pay was granted to Prabhu Dayal Chhabra on completion of 18 years of service, in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 at Rs.2425/- per month on 17.06.1996. When occasion arose for revision of pay scale applicable w.e.f. 01.09.1996, Prabhu Dayal Chhabra was fixed in appropriate scale of the pay scale while he was drawing higher pay in the higher pay scale having completed 18 years of service. The benefit of higher pay scale upon completion of 18 years of service came to be conferred on Anand Kumar Gupta only on 14.12.1996 as he was initially appointed on 14.12.1978. Since, on 01.09.1996 i.e. the date of revision of pay scale had taken place, Anand Kumar Gupta was getting pay in the lower pay scale, an anomaly arose that after re-fixation of pay in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500, Prabhu Dayal Chhabra started getting higher pay as compared to Anand Kumar Gupta, who was admittedly senior to him. 7. The benefit of stepping up of pay is granted to remove anomaly, where an officer though junior because of the operation [2025:RJ-JP:9530-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-1645/2019] of the revision of pay scale, starts getting higher pay as compared to his senior officer. 8. That was the basis for the Tribunal to grant relief to Anand Kumar Gupta. Learned Single Judge affirmed that order. 9. We are, therefore, of the view that there is no ground to warrant interference with the order passed by learned Single Judge. 10. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ INDER/PAYAL/62