Senior Employee's Pay Must Be Stepped Up On Par With Junior: Kerala HC

In a decisive blow to pay disparity caused by administrative schemes, the High Court of Kerala has held that senior employees cannot be made to draw a lower pay scale than their juniors under the guise of stagnation relief clauses. The Court ruled that denying pay stepping-up to seniors when a junior draws a higher pay upon promotion violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

A single-bench of Justice Harisankar V. Menon was hearing a writ petition filed by employees of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) who were aggrieved by their junior drawing a higher basic pay scale after being granted financial increments under a Stagnation Impact Amelioration Scheme.

Court Observations and Directions

The High Court observed that the disparity in basic pay arose solely because juniors who stagnated without timely promotions were extended additional increments, which were later factored into their basic pay upon promotion. Examining similar precedents under Advanced Career Promotion (ACP) schemes, the Court emphasized that a senior holding the same cadre cannot be subjected to lower emoluments.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "...a person who is holding same cadre, cannot expect to have different emoluments or allowances merely for the reason of stagnation of a junior in that cadre for a long period."

The Court has following directions:

"It is declared that the pay of the petitioners requires to be stepped up on par with that of their juniors in the category of Assistant Grade-II (Technical), whose pay was fixed also reckoning the ACP benefits while they served as Assistant Grade-III (Technical)."

Background

The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Grade-III (Technical) in the Food Corporation of India in May 2014. Due to available vacancies, the petitioners were promoted to Assistant Grade-II (Technical) in 2018. However, several of their colleagues who were appointed on the same date and listed lower in the provisional seniority list remained in the feeder cadre. As per Clause 3 of the FCI Stagnation Impact Amelioration Scheme (Ext.P12), these stagnated junior employees were granted additional increments upon completing regular service periods.

When these junior employees were subsequently promoted to Assistant Grade-II (Technical) in 2020, their basic pay was fixed by reckoning the extra increments earned during their stagnation. Consequently, by June 2023, the basic pay of junior employees (Rs. 36,860/-) surpassed that of the senior petitioners (Rs. 35,780/-). The petitioners' request for stepping up their pay was rejected by FCI authorities relying on Clause 25 of the Scheme, which explicitly barred the stepping up of pay where a junior draws more pay due to fixation under the scheme.

Challenging the rejection order and Clause 25 of the Scheme, the petitioners moved the High Court. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents, including Union of India and Others v. C.R. Madhava Murthy and Another, Union of India and Ors. v. G.Rajendran Nair ( "MANU/KE/2825/2023": 2023 CaseBase(KER) 28618), Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others v. Guddu Singh Rawat, and Government of Kerala and Another v. Dr. Anitha and Others, the Court affirmed that pay anomalies arising out of career progression or stagnation schemes must be rectified by stepping up the senior's pay.

Case Details:
Case No.: WP(C) NO. 31071 OF 2023
Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:62671
Case Title: SILIL KUMAR S. & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Shri. Elvin Peter P.J. (Sr.), Sri. K.R. Ganesh, Smt. Gouri Balagopal, Shri. Abhijith K. Anirudhan, Shri. Sreelekshmi A.S., Sri. Reshma Prakash Kurian
For the Respondent(s): Smt. Anu Thankam Mathew, Sri. George Poonthottam (Sr.)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(KER) 13021