/2022 INSC 0260/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2087­2088 OF 2022
Union of India & Ors.      ..Appellant (S)
Versus
Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr.                       ..Respondent (S)
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling  aggrieved  and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned   common
judgment   and   order   dated   31.07.2021   passed   by   the   High
Court   of   Karnataka   in   Writ   Petition   Nos.   33038­33039/2016,
by   which   the   High   Court   has   allowed   the   said   writ   petitions,
the   Union   of   India   and   others   have   preferred   the   present
appeals.
  
2. The   facts   leading   to   the   present   appeals   in   a   nutshell   are   as
under: ­
2.1 That   the   respondents   herein   ­   original   writ   petitioners   were
appointed   as   Lower   Division   Clerk   on   01.02.1973   and
03.08.1973, respectively. Thereafter, they were promoted to the
post   of   Upper   Division   Clerk   on   04.10.1976.   That   one   of   the

respondents   was   promoted   to   officiate   as   an   Inspector   w.e.f.
02.04.1981 and the other respondent was promoted to officiate
as   an   Inspector   on   13.07.1981.   One   Shri   C.K.   Satish   was
appointed   as   an   Inspector   on   17.12.1981   by   way   of   direct
recruitment and one Shri B.S. Srikanth was also appointed as
an Inspector by way of direct recruitment on 15.05.1982.  
In   order   to   provide   upgradation   to   its   employees   and   to
remove the stagnation on a particular post, the Union of India
introduced “Assured Career Progression Scheme” (ACP Scheme)
w.e.f.   09.08.1999.   The   said   Shri   C.K.   Satish   and   Shri   B.S.
Srikanth   were   granted   upgradation   under   the   ACP   Scheme.
The   original   writ   petitioners   were   promoted   to   the   post   of
Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs on 02.07.2000.
The   employees,   juniors   to   the   original   writ   petitioners   were
granted upgradation  under  the  ACP  Scheme w.e.f.  17.12.2005
and 15.05.2006. However, it so happened that the persons who
were placed lower in the upgradation list than the original writ
petitioners,   on   account   of   upgradation   granted   to   them   under
the   ACP   Scheme,   started   drawing   higher   pay.   Therefore,   the
original   writ   petitioners   submitted   a   representation   to   the
Department for stepping up and to remove the anomaly and to
fix   their   salaries   at   par   with   their   juniors.   Thereafter,   the

original   writ   petitioners   preferred   O.A.   Nos.   813   &   814/2014
before   the   Central   Administrative   Tribunal,   Bengaluru   Bench,
Bengaluru.   By   the   common   order   dated   04.01.2016,   the
Tribunal   rejected   the   said   applications.   Feeling   aggrieved   and
dissatisfied   with   the   common   order   dated   04.01.2016   passed
by   the   Tribunal,   the   respondents   herein   preferred   the   present
writ   petitions   before   the   High   Court.   On   considering   FR   22,
which   provides   for   stepping   up   of   pay   and   the   removal   of
anomaly   by   stepping   up   of   pay   of   a   senior   on   promotion
drawing   lesser   pay   than   his   junior,  by   the   impugned   common
judgment   and   order   the   High   Court   has   allowed   the   writ
petitions and has directed the appellants herein to step up the
pay   of   the   respondents   herein,   keeping   in   view   the   pay   scale
which has been granted to the juniors from the date they have
started drawing lesser pay than their juniors. 
2.2 Feeling   aggrieved   with   the   impugned   common   judgment   and
order passed by the High Court, the Union of India and others
have preferred the present appeals.       
3. Ms.   Madhvi   Divan,   learned   ASG,   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
appellants   has   vehemently   submitted   that   while   passing   the
impugned   common   judgment   and   order,   the   High   Court   has

not   at   all   appreciated   and/or   properly   considered   the   ACP
Scheme. 
3.1 It is submitted that the respective original writ petitioners were
already   promoted   to   the   post   of   Superintendent   of   Central
Excise   and   Customs.   It   is   submitted   that   once   the   respective
writ petitioners were already granted the promotion, thereafter,
there was no question of granting any stepping up of pay under
the ACP Scheme. 
3.2 It   is   submitted   that   the   High   Court   has   not   at   all   appreciated
the object and purpose of ACP Scheme. It is submitted that as
per   the   catena   of   judgments   of   this   Court   and   various   High
Courts,   the   purpose   of   the   ACP   Scheme/MACP   Scheme   is   to
relieve   the   frustration   on   account   of   stagnation   and   the
Scheme   does   not   involve   the   actual   grant   of   promotional   post
to  the employees, but  to  merely  monetary  benefits in  the form
of  next  higher   grade  subject  to  fulfilment  of  qualifications  and
eligibility   criteria.   It   is   submitted   therefore   that   when   in   the
present case the original writ petitioners were already promoted
to the next higher post – Superintendent of Central Excise and
Customs and  they  were placed in  the appropriate pay  scale of
the  promotional  post, thereafter, there was no  question  of any
stepping up in the pay.        

4. Having heard Ms. Madhvi Divan, learned ASG and considering
the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,   which   has   emerged
from   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High
Court,  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  original  writ  petitioners  were
as   such   claiming   the   stepping   up   of   the   pay   under   the   ACP
Scheme. Their grievance was with respect to the anomaly in the
pay   scale   and   their   grievance   was   that   while   granting
upgradation under the ACP Scheme, their juniors were getting
higher salaries than what they receive. Therefore, it was a case
of   removal   of   anomaly   by   stepping   up   of   pay   of   seniors   on
promotion drawing a less pay than their juniors. 
5. The   High   Court   has   therefore   rightly   relied   and/or   considered
FR   22   and   the   order   issued   by   the   Government   of   India   on
removal   of   anomaly   by   stepping   up   of   pay,   which   reads   as
under: ­ 
"(22)   Removal   of   anomaly   by   stepping   up   of   pay   of   Senior   on
promotion   drawing   less   pay   than   his   junior   ­   (a)   As   a   result   of
application of FR 22 ­C. [Now FR 22 (I) (a) (1)]. In order to remove
the anomaly of a Government servant promoted or appointed to a
higher   post   on   or   after   1­4­1961   drawing   a   lower   rate   of   pay   in
that   post   than   another   Government   servant   junior   to   him   in   the
lower   grade   and   promoted   or   appointed   subsequently   to   another
identical post, it has been decided the in such cases the pay of the
senior  officer  in the higher  post  should be stepped up to a figure
equal to the pay as fixed for the junior officer in that higher post.
The   stepping   up   should   be   done   with   effect   from   the   date   of
promotion or appointment of the junior officer and will be subject
to the following conditions, namely: ­
(a) Both the  junior  and  senior  officers  should  belong  to the
same   cadre   and   the   posts   in   which   they   have   been

promoted   or   appointed   should   be   identical   and   in   the
same cadre; 
(b) The scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which
they are entitled to draw pay should be identical; 
(c) The   anomaly   should   be   directly   as   a   result   of   the
application of FR­22­C. For example, if even in the lower
post   the   junior   officer   draws   from   time   to   time   a   higher
rate of pay than the senior by virtue of grant of advance
increments,   the   above   provisions   will   not   be   invoked   to
step up the pay of the senior officer.”
The   orders   refixing   the   pay   of   the   senior   officers   I   accordance
with   the   above   provisions   shall   be   issued   under   FR­27.   The
next   increment   of   the   senior   officer   will   be   drawn   on
completion   of   the   requisite   qualifying   service   with   effect   from
the date of refixation of pay. 
[G.I.,   M.F.,   0.M.   No.F.2   [78)­E.III   (A)/66,   dated   the   4th
February, 1966)".
6. 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  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.     
7. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated   above,   the
present   appeals   deserve   to   be   dismissed   and   the   same   are
dismissed, accordingly. 

…………………………………J.
                            (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
         (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, 
April  06, 2022.