Anilkumar vs Union Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 11890 Ker

Kerala High Court

Anilkumar vs Union Of India on 4 December, 2025

OP (CAT) NO. 187 OF 2024




                                               1
                                                                              2025:KER:93394


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                           PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI

                                               &

                       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN

               THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947

                                    OP (CAT) NO. 187 OF 2024

           AGAINST THE ORDERDATED 18.03.2024 IN OA NO.405 OF 2018 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE

                                 TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH


PETITIONER/S:

                ANILKUMAR
                AGED 70 YEARS
                S/O.N. KARUNAKARAN, ASWATHY ANCHETHU, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM, GENERAL
                MANAGER (RETD), CORDITE FACTORY (MINISTRY OF DEFENCE), PIN - 691001


                BY ADV SHRI.C.S. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR


RESPONDENT/S:

       1        UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH
                BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001

       2        CHAIRMAN
                ORDNANCE FACTORY BOARD, 10-A, S.K. BOSE ROAD, KOLKATTA, PIN - 700001

       3        THE PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF ACCOUNTS (FYS)
                10-A, S.K. BOSE ROAD, KOLKATTA, PIN - 700001

       4        THE GENERAL MANAGER
                CORDITE FACTORY, ARUVANKADU, NILGIRIS, TAMILNADU, PIN - 643202
 OP (CAT) NO. 187 OF 2024




                                               2
                                                                                  2025:KER:93394


       5        RAJIV AGARWAL
                FLAT NO.12022 ATS PARADISO, CHI-IV, GREATER NOIDA, PIN - 201308


                BY ADVS.
                SHRI.K.S. PRENJITH KUMAR, CGC
                SHRI.K.SHRI HARI RAO, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL



       THIS OP (CAT) HAVING RESERVED ON 27.11.2025, THE COURT ON 04.12.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 OP (CAT) NO. 187 OF 2024




                                       3
                                                                2025:KER:93394



                                   JUDGMENT

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present Original Petition, filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 18.03.2024 passed in

O.A. No. 180/00405/2018 by the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Ernakulam Bench, whereby the petitioner's claim for stepping up of pay

with reference to the pay of the fifth respondent was rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the

Indian Ordnance Factory Services (IOFS) as an Assistant Works Manager

in December 1979. Thereafter, he was promoted from time to time and

was finally promoted as General Manager in 2011. He retired from

service on 28.02.2013. The petitioner's case is that he came across the

pay slip of the fifth respondent, who belonged to the 1979 Civil Services

batch and was junior to him in the IOFS, and found that the fifth

respondent was drawing a higher pay than him.

2.1 The petitioner made a representation dated 16.02.2013 OP (CAT) NO. 187 OF 2024

2025:KER:93394

requesting the second respondent to rectify the anomaly and to step up

the pay equivalent to the fifth respondent, who was junior to him.

Though several representations were submitted, but no favourable

response was received. Thereafter, being aggrieved, the petitioner

approached the Tribunal seeking directions to respondents 1 to 4 to step

up the pay of the applicant. Thereafter, the pleadings were complete,

and the learned Tribunal vide the impugned order passed the following

operative directions:

"7. On implementation of the VIth CPC pay of both officers were fixed in the scales/Pay Band 4 with Grade Pay of Rs. 10,000/-. The pay in respect of the 5th respondent was fixed at Rs. 47,440/- plus Grade Pay of Rs. 10,000/- whereas in the case of the applicant it was Rs. 46,050/- plus HE HIGH Grade Pay of Rs. 10,000/-.

8. After fixation of pay as per the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 and earning of increments as per Rules, the pay as on 1.7.2008 of the applicant was Rs. 51,270/- whereas that of the 5th respondent was Rs. 52,780/-. This is the difference projected by the applicant.

9. The facts mentioned above clearly shows that the anomaly was consequent to the successive non-exercise of options by the applicant at different stages. The facts mentioned in the reply statement has not been OP (CAT) NO. 187 OF 2024

2025:KER:93394

denied by the applicant. The applicant has no case that he has exercised the option. The 5th respondent had promptly exercised his option and got the benefit. Hence, it is clear that there was no anomaly due to application of FR 22C or any other Rule or Government instructions on the subject.

Hence, the conditions prescribed for stepping up are not satisfied. The reliefs sought in the OA cannot be granted. The Original Application fails and is accordingly, dismissed. No costs."

Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court in the Original

Petition.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the

Tribunal erred in dismissing the Original Application, inasmuch as the

order passed by the Tribunal is arbitrary and illegal and therefore

deserves to be set aside. The learned Counsel, relying on the judgment

of the Apex Court in Union of India and others v. P. Jagadish and others1,

submitted that Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India is a guiding

1997 (3) SCC 176 OP (CAT) NO. 187 OF 2024

2025:KER:93394

factor in interpreting FR 22, and that the principle of stepping up

contained in the Fundamental Rules comes into play when a junior

employee in the same post starts receiving a higher salary than his

senior. This aspect, it is argued, was not considered by the Tribunal.

3.1 Further, the learned Counsel argued that the petitioner, being

the senior, is entitled to similar treatment. He relied on FR 22, Note 7 of

Rule 7 of the CCS (RP) Rules, 1986, as well as paragraph 3 of O.M. No.

1(14)-E-III/89 dated 16.06.1989 issued by the Department of Expenditure,

which reads as follows:

(a) both the junior and the senior Government servants should belong to

the same cadre and / posts in which they have been promoted should be

identical in the same cadre.

(b)the pre-revised and revised scale of pay of the lower and higher posts

in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical, and

(c) the senior Government servant promoted before 1.1.1986 has been

drawing equal or more pay in the lower post than his junior promoted OP (CAT) NO. 187 OF 2024

2025:KER:93394

after 1.1.86.

3.2 In spite of the fulfilment of these requirements, the wrong

fixation of pay resulted in an anomaly, as is evident from the entries

made in the petitioner's Service Book. Relying on P. Jagadish (supra), the

learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the same

treatment as the fifth respondent and, therefore, prayed for setting

aside the order passed by the Tribunal.

4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents opposed

the prayer and submitted that the Tribunal had rightly rejected the

petitioner's claim, considering that the anomaly arose due to the

petitioner's repeated failure to exercise his options at various stages.

The petitioner has not denied this non-exercise of options, whereas the

fifth respondent had promptly exercised his options and obtained the

corresponding benefits. It was further contended that the conditions

prescribed for stepping up of pay are not satisfied.

4.1 Further, the learned Counsel pointed out that the petitioner's OP (CAT) NO. 187 OF 2024

2025:KER:93394

claim for stepping up of pay had already been rejected vide letter dated

25.03.2002 (Annexure-A14). This fact was well known to the petitioner,

as evident from paragraph 6 of the Rejoinder dated 22.07.2019, in which

the petitioner himself annexed the letter of rejection dated 25.03.2002.

Moreover, the Original Application was filed only in 2018, after a delay

of approximately 16 years. The petitioner, however, stated that he had

submitted a representation in 2013 and subsequent representations

thereafter.

4.2 Furthermore, merely filing successive representations after a

long delay would not bring the case within the period of limitation.

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, prescribes a one-

year period of limitation for filing an Original Application. In fact, no

application seeking condonation of delay was filed. Although the

Tribunal did not consider the limitation aspect, the Original Application

was dismissed on a different ground, namely, that the anomaly in the

pay scale arose due to the petitioner's non-exercise of options, as OP (CAT) NO. 187 OF 2024

2025:KER:93394

compared to the fifth respondent. Therefore, no fault can be found with

the order passed by the Tribunal, as the Original Application was itself

hopelessly time barred. Accordingly, the Original Petition deserves to be

dismissed.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the

records

6. Admittedly, the claim for stepping up of pay was rejected vide

letter dated 25.03.2002 (Annexure-A14), which was never challenged,

even belatedly. On this ground alone, the petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

7. So far as the repeated representations are concerned, the

Apex Court in Karnataka Power Corporation Limited. v. K. Thangappan 2

has held:

"6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under

(2006) 4 SCC 322 OP (CAT) NO. 187 OF 2024

2025:KER:93394

Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports [(1969) 1 SCC 185, AIR 1970 SC 769]. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably."

7.1 In the case of State of Tripura and Others vs. Arabinda

Chakraborty and Others3, the Supreme Court has held that the filing of

repeated representations will not condone the delay. The period of

limitation commences from the date on which the cause of action arises

for the first time.

7.2 The Supreme Court, in the case of M.P. Ram Mohan Raja Vs.

State of T.N. and others4, has held as under:

(2014) 6 SCC 460

(2007) 9 SCC 78 OP (CAT) NO. 187 OF 2024

2025:KER:93394

"11. So far as the question of delay is concerned, no hard and fast rule can be laid down, and it will depend on the facts of each case. In the present case, the facts stare at the face of it that on 8-10-1996 an order was passed by the Collector in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court, rejecting the application of the writ petitioner for consideration of the grant of mining lease. The writ petitioner sat tight over the matter and did not challenge the same up to 2003. This on the face of it appears to be very serious. A person who can sit tight for such a long time for no justifiable reason, cannot be given any benefit."

7.3 The Supreme Court, in the case of Nadia Distt. Primary School

Council Vs. Sristidhar Biswas and others5, held as under:

"11. In the present case, the panel was prepared in 1980 and the petitioners approached the court in 1989 after the decision in Dibakar Pal. Such persons should not be given any benefit by the court when they allowed more than nine years to elapse. Delay is very significant in matters of granting relief and courts cannot come to the rescue of the persons who are not vigilant of their rights. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court condoning the delay of nine years cannot be countenanced."

7.4 The Supreme Court, in the case of Jagdish Lal Vs. State of

(2007) 12 SCC 779 OP (CAT) NO. 187 OF 2024

2025:KER:93394

Haryana and others6, held that:

"18. That apart, as this Court has repeatedly held, the delay disentitles the party to discretionary relief under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution."

7.5 The Supreme Court, in the case of Shiv Dass Vs. Union of

India7, held thus:

"6. Normally, in the case of belated approach, writ petition has to be dismissed. Delay or laches is one of the factors to be borne in mind by the High Courts when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably."

8. In view of the aforesaid legal pronouncement by the Hon'ble

(1997) 6 SCC 538

(2007) 9 SCC 274 OP (CAT) NO. 187 OF 2024

2025:KER:93394

Apex Court, we find no justification to grant any indulgence to the

petitioner against the order of the Tribunal, particularly as no

application seeking condonation of delay was filed explaining the

plausible reasons for such a long delay. The Original Application suffers

from an inordinate delay of approximately 16 years.

We are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for.

The Original Petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE

Sd/-

P. V. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE jjj OP (CAT) NO. 187 OF 2024

2025:KER:93394

APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) NO. 187 OF 2024

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE PAY SLIP OF THE APPLICANT WHICH PERTAINS TO MAY 2009 WITH TYPED COPY Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE PAY SLIP OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT WHICH PERTAINS TO MAY 2009 WITH TYPED COPY Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.2.2013 WITH TYPED COPY Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.02.2013 Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.7.2013 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT:1.6. 2015 Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.3956/ MO/ FIX/ SU/ 990736 DT:4.11.2015 Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT:31.08.2017 Annexure R1 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR BEARING NUMBER NO. AT/11/2437-1 DATED 11.01.1988 WITH ITS TYPED COPY Annexure R2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NUMBER RD/PERS-7/95770/2672/ 4736/ D(CIR-I) DATED 04.11.1998 WITH ITS TYPED COPY Annexure R3 TRUE COPY OF O.M BEARING NUMBER F.NO.1(2) E.III/95 DATED 23.03.1995 WITH ITS TYPED COPY Annexure R4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER BEARING NO. 2815/AIG DATED 16.02.2016 Annexure R5 TRUE COPY OF SER.VICE_ BOOK OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT WITH REFIXATION OF PAY WITH TYPED COPY OF THE 1ST PAGE Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER P/O/V/8969 DT:27.9.1996 Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. P/O/V/8969 DT:11.12.1996 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Annexure A 11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. P/O/V/8969 DT:23.12.1996 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Annexure A 12 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DT:18.7.1997 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Annexure A 13 TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 3.6.1997 Annexure A 14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.575/ANTE- DTNG /A/G DT:25.3.2002 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.405/2018 BEFORE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH Exhibit2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENTS Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER OP (CAT) NO. 187 OF 2024

2025:KER:93394

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE REJOINDER FILED BY RESPONDENTS Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.1(4) -E-III/89 DT:16.6.1989 Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/03/2024 IN OA NO. 405/2018 PASSED BY CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH