S. B. SINHA ( 1 ) ORDER dated 17/12/1999 of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O. A no 950/99 dismissing the application filed by the petitioners herein for stepping up their pay on the ground of delay and laches is in question in this writ petition. ( 2 ). The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as LDCs by direct recruitment through Staff Selection Commission on 1. 11. 1974, 26. 11. 1975, 5. 6. 1974, 29. 8. 1975 and 6. 10. 1975 respectively They were promoted to officiate as UDCs in CSCS and nominated by the DPandt for zoning scheme to DGSandd. It is stated That six UDCs junior to the petitioners were shown senior in the list of UDCs published on 1. 9. 1988. On the representation of the petitioners the respondent modified the Select List giving the petitioners in the select list of 1982 putting the petitioners at par with their juniors, but, their seniority was allegedly wrongly placed below the juniors. The petitioners once again represented against it. The petitioners seniority was modified vide letter dated 8. 8. 1996. It is alleged by the petitioners that the respondents failed to give consequential benefits arising out of letter dated 8. 8. 1996 at par with the juniors who were given prior promotion based on erroneous seniority list for the grade of UDC. The petitioners, then again made representations on 4. 11. 96 and 14. 11. 1996 the respondent finally rejected the representation of the petitioners by their letter dated 6. 11. 1998. ( 3 ) STEPPING up of pay is provided under Rule 22 (3) (1) (a) (i) of the Fundamental Rules admittedly the petitioners filed a representation for stepping up their pay In the order dated 23-10-1996 the respondent stated "that 8 officials including Shr. Dhan Singh who were working in the CSCS cadre of ministry of Home Affairs as LDC were nominated by DPandt to the CSCS cadre of this deptt. as long term UDCs They should have been included in the Select List 1982 of udcs by MHA but Due to oversight on their part these officials were included on long term basis. Dhan Singh who were working in the CSCS cadre of ministry of Home Affairs as LDC were nominated by DPandt to the CSCS cadre of this deptt. as long term UDCs They should have been included in the Select List 1982 of udcs by MHA but Due to oversight on their part these officials were included on long term basis. These UDCs represented for their inclusion in SL-82 of UDCs and restoration of their seniority in UDC grade However, by the time mailer of their seniority could be settled and they be assigned correct seniority in consultation with dpandt and M/o Law, persons who are supposed to be their junior were given ad hoc promotion as Asstt. w. e. f 25. 4. 1990. This happened due to unavoidable administrative delay on the part of MHA, this Deptt, M/o Law and DPandt It may be appreciated that at this stage when the officials are working in other Ministries/deptts. on their transfer under decentralization of DGSandd they cannot be considered for grant of ad-hoc promotion as Asstt. in CSS cadre of this deptt. M/o Defence where Shri Dhan Singh is presently working may therefore, consider the request of Shri Dhan Singh for ad hoc promotion/refixation of pay sympathetically. " similar recommendations were made by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India in his Office Memorandum dated 7. 9. 1998. However, by order dated 6. 11. 1998, representation of the petitioners was rejected which was subject matter of the original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The only question which arises for consideration is as to whether is it a fit case where the learned tribunal ought not have dismissed the application on the ground of delay alone. In the instant case, the petitioners are not to be blamed. Their cases were not considered by oversight. Persons junior to them had been given ad hoc promotion from 25. 4. 90 before the matter relating to their seniority could be settled. It is accepted that the same happened due to unavoidable administrative delay on the part of the Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Law DPandt. Their cases have been recommended as noticed herein before also by Office Memorandum dated 7. 9. 1998 wherein it was noticed : "2. 4. 90 before the matter relating to their seniority could be settled. It is accepted that the same happened due to unavoidable administrative delay on the part of the Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Law DPandt. Their cases have been recommended as noticed herein before also by Office Memorandum dated 7. 9. 1998 wherein it was noticed : "2. The facts of Shri Somnath, LDC s case are as under: while working as LDC in the dgsandd Shri Somnath was prima facie found indulged in activities unbeoming of a government servant, and was charge-sheeted for violation of Rule 3 of CCS ( conduct) Rules, 1964. He was also placed under suspension w. e. f. 26. 2. 90. A CBI inquiry was initiated against Shri Somnath but ultimately the charges could not be proved beyond doubt. As a result the charges were dropped and his suspension order was revoked w. e. f. 5. 1. 1996. While Shri Somnath was under suspension his juniors in the grade got ad hoc as well as regular promotion. As per Govt guidelines on revocation of suspension the sealed cover procedure was followed and he was given the benefit of fixation of pay w. e. f. the date of regular promotion of his immediate junior. Subsequently this benefit was extended to Shri Somnath w e. f. the date of ad hoc promotion of his junior. A copy of DPandt advice in this regard is enclosed for ready reference. 3. Now, in the case of Shri Dhan Singh and 7 other UDCs they were earlier wrongly placed in the seniority list below their juniors as a result of which they were erroneously superceded by their juniors. By the time the mistake could be rectified in consultation with the DPandt these officials were transferred out to other Ministries/ deptt. as a result of partial decentralization of purchase work of DGSandd. Thus they were wrongly denied by the office their justified claim of ad hoc and regular promotion as Assistant as was allowed in case of their juniors. 4. Therefore it is seen that in the case of Shri Somnath there was prima facie a case against him and he was prevented from officiating in the higher grade as he was under suspension for charges which could not be proved subsequently. Whereas in. 4. Therefore it is seen that in the case of Shri Somnath there was prima facie a case against him and he was prevented from officiating in the higher grade as he was under suspension for charges which could not be proved subsequently. Whereas in. the case of these eight UDCs they were prevented from officiating in the higher grade only for the reason that their seniority were wrongly fixed by the Govt. These officials cannot be held responsible in any way for the inordinate delay of their correct fixation of seniority and the blame for the delay goes to various Ministries/dsptts. involved in the matter. Thus, where the benefits of ad hoc/regular promotion and benefits of pay fixation with retrospective effect was allowed in the case of Shri Somnath (though he was under suspension at the relevant time) the same benefits have been denied to these 8 UDCs despite the fact they were physically available in the cadre at the time of ad hoc regular promotion of their juniors. " ( 4 ). While passing the order dated 6. 11. 1998 rejecting the representation of the petitioners, no reason has been assigned. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it does not appear to be a case of stepping up of pay but really of fixation of proper pay. The Apex Court in M. R. Gupta Vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 669 , has, inter alia, held that if a question arises as regards fixation of initial pay, the period of limitation cannot be said to have any application. This aspect has been considered in Union of India and Another Vs. R. Swaminathan and ors, 1997 (7) SCC 690 . where it was held : "8. THE fixation of this pay in the higher post is, however, subject to the proviso. If the person so promoted has earlier officiated in that higher post or substantively held that higher post for short or long duration, then, (1) his initial pay which is fixed under rule 22 (l) (a) (1) shall not be less than the last pay which he drew when he last held the higher post. (2) the period during which he drew that pay on such last and any previous occasions shall count for increments in the time scale of the pay for the higher post. (2) the period during which he drew that pay on such last and any previous occasions shall count for increments in the time scale of the pay for the higher post. For example, if the promotee had previously, on various occasions, officiated in that higher post for different periods, and if the sum total of periods for which he so officiated is more than T2 months, he would be entitled to an increment in that higher pay scale. His initial pay, therefore, on his regular promotion will be fixed taking into account not merely his entitlement on the basis of his notional pay in the pay scale of the lower post, but also taking into account the last pay drawn by him while he was officiating in the higher post and also counting the previous periods during which he so officiated for his increment in the higher pay scale. The department has also, in this connection, drawn our attention to Fundamental Rule 26 which, inter alia, provides as follows: fr 26. (a) all duty in a post on a time scale counts for increments in that time-scale: provided that for the purpose of arriving at the date of the next increment in that time scale, the total of all such periods as do not count for increment in that time scale shall be added to the normal date of increment. " ( 5 ). Having regard to the fact that injustice has been done to the petitioner, in our opinion, it was not a case where the learned Tribunal should have refused to exercise its jurisdiction on the ground of delay and laches alone. ( 6 ). Each case, in our opinion, should be considered on facts obtaining therein. ( 7 ). In the result, the impugned judgment is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the learned Tribunal for consideration of the matter afresh on merits. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.