Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010178852024 2026:GAU-AS:14656-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/109/2025 HEMENDRA NATH THAKUR S/O LATE UPENDRA NATH THAKUR, RESIDENT OF RUKMINIGAON, NEAR TANGRA SATRA, KHANAPARA GUWAHATI , KAMRUP M ASSAM 781022 VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF INLAND WATER TRANSPORT ASSAM, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI 7 3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 06 4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON, BELTOLA, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (M) ASSAM For the appellant/petitioner(s) : Mr. Bijon Chakraborty, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R.B. Goswami, SC, Transport Deptt. Mr. Biplab Chakravarty, SC, AG, Assam Page No.# 2/6 –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI 01.10.2026 (AshutoshKumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. Bijon Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant; Mr. R.B. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department, Assam, and Mr. Biplab Chakravarty, learned Standing Counsel for the office of the Accountant General, Assam, for the respondents. By the present appeal, the appellant has questioned the judgment dated 19.06.2024, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 4751/2015, refusing to accord the stepping-up of the pay of the appellant so as to make it equal to the pay received by his seniors in the same cadre. In order to appreciate the contention of the appellant as also the reasoning employed by the learned Single Judge in rejecting his claim, certain facts would be necessary to recount. The appellant was appointed as a Subordinate Engineer in the Inland Water Transport Department, Assam, sometimes in the year 1969. During his service period, he, being an Associate Member of the Institute of Engineers (India), acquired Engineering Degree. According to the Assam Engineering (Public Works Department) Service Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred as “Rules of 1978”), any person passing Parts-A and B of the engineering course under such institution is treated as equivalent to persons holding Engineering Degree. For the reason of the appellant having acquired such Degree, he Page No.# 3/6 was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 1981. At the time of his promotion to the cadre of Assistant Engineer, there were three Subordinate Engineers, namely, Sri Ratan Singh, Md. Samjidur Rahman and Sri A.K. Deka, who were senior to him in the feeder cadre. All of these three Subordinate Engineers were promoted to the superior post of Assistant Engineer, but only later in point of time, in between 1982-1984. For the reason of the appellant having been promoted to the rank of Assistant Engineer before the afore-noted three persons, he became senior to hem in the cadre of Assistant Engineers, who were senior to him in the feeder cadre. As the appellant was junior to the afore-noted three Subordinate Engineers in the feeder cadre, the appellant had been receiving less salary than them because of the yearly incremental additions/benefits, which came with the number of years in service. When the appellant was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in 1981, his pay was fixed on the basis of the pay structure/pay slab for Assistant Engineers, based on the last pay drawn in the feeder cadre. Similarly, in the case of the three afore-noted senior Subordinate Engineers, who became Assistant Engineers, their salaries also were fixed on the basis of the last scale/pay that they were getting in the feeder cadre. This automatically resulted in the appellant getting lesser pay than the pay drawn by the afore-noted three persons, who also joined the same superior cadre of Assistant Engineer, but later than the appellant and, thus, they were junior to him in the seniority/civil list of the cadre of Assistant Engineer. The appellant clamoured for stepping-up of his pay to match the pay of the other three persons, about which reference has been made Page No.# 4/6 earlier, on the ground that it would be contrary to the settled principles of law that a senior gets less salary than his juniors in the cadre of Assistant Engineer. This cannot be countenanced, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, even in the circumstances when there is a difference in the incremental benefits in the pay scale given to the juniors with the scale given to the seniors. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh Grewal vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Another: (2009) 3 SCC 94, such anomaly cannot be allowed to continue and must be rectified so that pay of the appellant is stepped-up to that of the afore-noted three senior Subordinate Engineers. The learned Single Judge, taking note of the fact that the appellant was junior to the afore-noted three persons in the cadre of Subordinate Engineers and was getting less salary than them, found that there could be no reason for stepping-up of the pay of the appellant to match the higher pay slab of the other three persons, when they were promoted to the rank of Assistant Engineer. It was also held that the reliance of the appellant on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. P. Jagdish and Others : (1997) 3 SCC 176, and Calcutta Municipal Corporation and Another vs. Sujit Baran Mukherjee and Others: (1997) 11 SCC 463, was inappropriate as those judgments only refer to the provisions of the fundamental rules to remove the anomaly of the government servant promoted or appointed to higher post earlier and drawing less salary than the government servants junior to him in the Page No.# 5/6 lower grade, and promoted and appointed subsequently to a higher post. It was only under such circumstance that there could be stepping- up of pay, which was being asked for by the appellant. In the afore-noted cases of the Supreme Court, it was held that in such cases referred to above, the pay of the senior officer in the higher post is required to be stepped-up to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for the junior officers in the hierarchy. The stepping-up of pay was required to be done only with effect from the date of promotion or appointment of the junior officers. In the present case, the appellant was admittedly junior to the afore- noted three Subordinate Engineers, and he was fortunately promoted earlier than them to the cadre of Assistant Engineers. The afore-noted three engineers were getting higher pay in the feeder cadre and, even at the time of their joining in the superior cadre of Assistant Engineers, they were getting higher pay than the appellant. This was only because of the longer duration of service of the three engineers; but incidentally they became junior to the appellant when they were promoted later to the rank of Assistant Engineers. In the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. vs M. Pandurang & Ors (1996) 7 SCC 11, it has been held by the Supreme Court that if a junior, by the circumstance of the length of service, is drawing higher scale of pay, no parity of pay can be claimed by the seniors on that basis. (Also refer to State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Etc. Etc vs G. Sreenivasa Rao & Ors. Etc.: (1989) 2 SCC 290). There cannot be any confusion with regard to the afore-noted proposition for the reason that the Government of Assam in the Page No.# 6/6 Department of Finance has clarified the position vide a Circular dated 10.09.1997. The afore-noted Circular provides that there shall be no equalisation/ stepping-up of pay in cases where a junior government servant is promoted to higher post prior to his seniors as per special rules/special orders. In such cases, he cannot claim equalisation with his juniors, who were, in fact, senior to him in the feeder cadre. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant, seeking to distinguish his case from the cases as mentioned in the afore-noted Circular, submits that the appellant was never promoted or appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer by virtue of any special rule or special order, but only on the basis of the provision in the Rules of 1978, that a Subordinate Engineer acquiring the Associate Membership of the Institution of Engineers (India) and passing Parts-A and B of the engineering course from such Institute could be promoted earlier/out of turn. This rule is deemed to be a special rule or special provision in the rule governing all others. Thus, the advantage, which the juniors have, cannot be a ground for stepping-up of the pay of the appellant. We find that the reasoning employed by the learned Single Judge is based on sound logic enunciated in judicial precedents as also in conformity with the clarification made by the Government of Assam in the Finance Department, vide its Circular dated 10.09.1997. Thus, we do not find any merits in this appeal and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant