UNION OF INDIA vs. INCOME TAX GAZZETTED OFFICER ASSOCIATION

CW/15452/2025HC RajasthanRJHC02085651202508 January 2026Author: INDERJEET SINGH,RAVI CHIRANIA4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court agreed with the view taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal and found no grounds for interference. The Tribunal had allowed the Original Application, directing the respondents to remove the pay anomaly and step up the salary of the applicants at par with their respective junior(s) within four months. The Tribunal's decision was based on judicial discipline, following orders from the Karnataka High Court in Union of India & Anr. Vs. Gautam Kumar & Ors. and the CAT, Principal Bench, Delhi in Akhilesh Kumar Rastogi Vs. UOI & Ors., which was upheld by the Delhi High Court. The High Court noted that these decisions had not been further challenged before the Apex Court. The principle established is that seniors are entitled to step up their pay to match their juniors if the anomaly arises due to reasons like juniors earning advance increments on passing departmental examinations later. The directions were made subject to any orders from the Hon'ble Apex Court. The operative direction was to step up the salary of the applicants at par with their junior(s).

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Union of India and others, challenged an order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jaipur. The CAT had allowed an Original Application (OA) filed by the Income Tax Gazetted Officer Association, Rajasthan Unit, and its General Secretary, Sh. Jai Narayan Sharma. The OA concerned the Department's failure to grant the benefit of stepping up of pay to the respondent No. 2 and other association members. The CAT relied on orders from the Karnataka High Court and the CAT, Principal Bench, Delhi, which had decided similar controversies in favor of the applicants. The petitioners argued that individual applications were necessary for pay anomaly redressal. The respondents contended that the Delhi High Court had already upheld the stepping up of pay benefit in a similar case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in allowing the Original Application and directing the stepping up of pay for the members of the association, despite the requirement for individual applications, based on the principle of judicial discipline and reliance on previous High Court and Tribunal orders (turning on principles of pay parity and administrative law)? Assessee's Contention (Petitioner - Union of India): The members of the association cannot claim the stepping up of their pay collectively; they must file separate applications for the redressal of their grievances. Revenue's Contention (Respondent - Income Tax Gazetted Officer Association): The issue involved in this writ petition has already been considered and decided by the Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Rastogi, where the writ petition filed by the Union of India was dismissed, and they were directed to grant the benefit of stepping up of pay.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2026:RJ-JP:486-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15452/2025 1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi- 110001. 2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through Its Chairman, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 3. Department Of Personnel And Training, Through Its Secretary, North Block, New Delhi-11001 4. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Department Of Income Tax, Rajasthan, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur-302005 5. Principal Chief Controller Of Accounts, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, 9Th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi-110003. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Income Tax Gazetted Officer Association, Rajasthan Unit Through Its General Secretary (Sh. Jai Narayan Sharma) Room No. 17, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur-302005, Rajasthan. 2. Sh. Jai Narayan Sharma S/o Late Sh. Kapoor Chand Sharma, Aged About 57 Years, R/o 2, Panchsheel Enclave, Near Hotel Clark, J.ln. Marg, Jaipur-302017, Presently Working As Ito, Department Of Income Tax, Jaipur. Group B Service. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Chandra Shekhar Sinha For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Mathur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Order

[2026:RJ-JP:486-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-15452/2025] 08/01/2026

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur (hereafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’).

Brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed Original Application (OA) before the Tribunal with regard to their grievance against the Department as the Department has failed to give benefit of stepping up of pay to the respondent No.2 as well as to other members of the association. The Tribunal while allowing the Original Application relied upon the order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru as well as the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principle Bench at Delhi. The Tribunal while considering the matter in para 4, 9, 10 & 11 has held as under:- “4. The applicants have relied upon the order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Gautam Kumar & Ors. (WP No.49498/2019 (S-CAT) and order dated 22.12.2022 passed by Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Akhilesh Kumar Rastogi Vs. UOI & Ors. (OA No.1139/2022), which was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide its order 15.01.2024 passed in W.P. (C) No.12653/2023 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Rastogi). The applicants state that vide aforesaid orders, the present controversy has been decided in favour of the applicants.

[2026:RJ-JP:486-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-15452/2025]

However, we are bound by judicial discipline, as such, we dispose off the present Original Application on the same terms as has been adjudicated in the above judgments/orders cited by the applicants.

10.

Therefore, the applicants are held entitled to step up their pay at par with that of their respective junior. Since the present Original Applicant has been filed by the Association, we want to clarify that while it is the principle that the senior who earned advance increment on passing of the departmental examination prior to his junior and his junior earning advance increment on passing of the same departmental examination later in time; results in the junior drawing more salary than the senior on this account then the senior is entitled to step up of his pay and draw salary at par with that of his junior, is being allowed, the facts and entitlement of individuals, who would submit their applications to the respondents, shall be subject to the verification by the respondents.

11.

Accordingly, the respondents are directed to remove the anomaly and step up the salary of the applicants at par with their junior(s), within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It has been brought to our notice that the issue of pay parity of seniors with that of their juniors, earned by juniors in their individual capacity, is under the consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, our directions to the respondents in this case are subject to any directions / orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court on this controversy.

[2026:RJ-JP:486-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-15452/2025] 3. which has not been further challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court as informed by learned counsel for the parties.

We are agreeing with the view taken by the Tribunal and no case is made out for interference.

The writ petition is dismissed, accordingly. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Monika/8 1 2024 SCC OnLine Del 284

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →