In Brief
This appeal concerns whether direct appointees as Assistant Professors deserve pay increases to match juniors who received higher pay by counting prior ad hoc services. The Supreme Court held that Rule 21 of the Pay Rules, which allows stepping up of a senior's pay when fixed lower than a junior's, does not apply here. The key condition is that pay anomalies must result directly from the pay fixation rule itself, not from separate government resolutions granting benefits for prior ad hoc service. Since the appellants did not challenge the resolutions granting the juniors' benefits, and the higher pay arose from special scheme treatment rather than normal rule application, no stepping up was justified. The appeal was dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.