[2026:RJ-JP:1156-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16187/2025 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Department Of Personnel And Training, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi- 110001. 2. The Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi- 110001. 3. The Registrar General And Census Commissioner Of India, A- Wing, 1St Floor, Ndcc Building, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi- 110001. 4. The Director, Directorate Of Census Operations, Ministry Of Home Affairs, 6-B, Jhalana Dungri, Jaipur 302004. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Anil Kumar Pareek S/o Sh. Shyam Narain Pareek, R/o 1493, Jat Ke Kuwe Ka Rasta, Pin- 302001, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.) (Retired In The Office Of Director, Directorate Of Census Operations, Rajasthan, Jaipur On The Post Of Sr. Supervisor) Group-B. 2. Smt. Gyan Batra D/o Sh. K.l. Gambhir, R/o Plot No. 3, Dha-2, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) (Retired In The Office Of Director, Directorate Of Census Operations, Rajasthan, Jaipur On The Post Of Sr. Supervisor). 3. P.n. Mathur S/o Sh. L.l. Mathur, Aged About 61 Years, R/o 157, Prithvi Raj Nagar, Maharani Farm, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.) (Retired In The Office Of Director, Directorate Of Census Operations, Rajasthan, Jaipur On The Post Of Sr. Supervisor). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Sinha, Central Government Counsel. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Lodha, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ankit Rathore, Advocate. [2026:RJ-JP:1156-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-16187/2025] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 12/01/2026 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Tribunal’) whereby the Tribunal has held as under: “The controversy involved in this matter has already been adjudicated by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jaswant Kaur & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. (OA No. 60/556/2017) decided on 13.07.2018. The operative part is reproduced hereunder: “12. The basic question before this Tribunal is whether operation of the ACP/MACP Scheme simultaneously with the merger of the cadres may be allowed to deny the applicants their prima-facie entitlement of equal pay to their juniors. In this context, we observe that both the ACP and MACP Schemes have clear provisions for the financial upgradation to be purely personal to the employees with no relevance to their seniority position. Also they both provide that there shall be no financial upgradation for the senior employees on the ground that the junior employee in the grade is getting higher pay scale under the ACP/MACP Scheme. It is also true that the Career Progression Schemes have been in operation since 1999 in all the Union Government offices across the country. Any alteration in this Scheme at this point of time may lead to some administrative difficulties. However, on this account alone, the senior employees cannot be denied their right to draw pay at least equal to their juniors especially when both of them are equally qualified and having same level of responsibility. This anomalous situation has arisen because of provisions of the ACP and MACP Scheme disallowing removal of anomaly in such cases. However, these provisions in the ACP and MACP clearly conflict with the principles of equity. There is no reason why senior employees should not get their pay at least equal to their juniors unless there are clear cut distinguishing circumstances like passing of [2026:RJ-JP:1156-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-16187/2025] examination by the juniors etc. No such distinguishing circumstances are existing in the present case. 13. In the light of above discussion, the O.A. succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.10.2016 (Annexure A-1) is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the applicants for fixation of their pay at par with their juniors, so as to remove the anomaly, in the interest of equity and fair play. This exercise may be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” In view of the above, impugned orders dated 09.12.2019 (Annexure-A/1 to A/14) are quashed and set aside and the present Original Application is allowed in the term of order passed by the Chandigarh Bench of this Bench in OA No. 60/556/2017 titled the Jaswant Kaur & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. decided on 13.07.2018. No order as to costs.” 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that Tribunal has allowed the ‘OA’ relying upon the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in the matter of “Jaswant Kaur and Ors. Versus Union of India and Ors.” passed on 13.07.2018 in O.A No.60-00556/2017. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner has filed writ petition against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide its order dated 28.11.2025 dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of Union of India wherein in paragraphs no.14, 15, 16 and 17, it is held as under: “14. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India And Others Versus Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy and another in Civil Appeal Nos. 2087-2088 of 2022 decided on 06.04.2022, if the senior is getting lower salary than the junior, the benefit of step- up of pay has to be granted, the relevant paragraph of the judgment is as under:- “Therefore, it was a case where a junior was drawing more pay on account of upgradation under the ACP Scheme and there was an anomaly and therefore, the [2026:RJ-JP:1156-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-16187/2025] pay of senior was required to be stepped up. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has rightly directed the appellants herein to step up the pay of the original writ petitioners keeping in view of pay scale which has been granted to the juniors from the date they have started drawing lesser pay than their juniors. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. No interference of this Court is called for.” 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to rebut the said principle of law. 16. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances mentioned herein above, the grant of relief in favour of the respondents by the learned Tribunal cannot be treated as arbitrary or illegal either on facts or on record or on the settled principle of law. 17. In view of the above, no ground is made out to call any interference in the order dated 17.07.2019 passed by the Tribunal, hence, the present writ, are hereby, dismissed.” 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order has been passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the matter of “Union of India and Ors. versus Jaswant Kaur and Ors.” and no SLP has been filed as yet against the order passed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. Counsel further submits that the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana High Court while deciding the writ petition has not considered the Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009 be that as it may. 4. In that view of the matter, since the issue involved in this writ petition has already been considered and decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, no case is made out for interference by this Court and this writ petition is dismissed in view of judgment passed by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of Union of India (supra). (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Tushar/110