ORDER : 1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.07.2020 delivered in W.P. (C) No. 1303 of 2017 titled as Bidyut Kumar Deb vs. State of Tripura and Another. 2. The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the memorandum dated 17.07.2017 [Annexure-7 to the writ petition] whereby the stepping up of pay as provided by the memorandum under No. F.1(171)/STAT/ESTT/99/4693-4694 dated 18.08.2015 has been recalled by observing as follows: Whereas, stepping of pay of Smt. Aparna Sarkar and 3(three) others have been examined with reference to the Notification No. F.6(1)-FIN(PC)/2008 dated 23.07.2013. Para 6(b) of the Notification clearly mentioned that the stepping up of pay in the Pay Band/Grade Pay shall be done subject to the condition that both the senior and junior employees should borne in the same Cadre and the post under the same department with same line of promotion. It has been provided that the so called junior officers got promotion earlier than that of the appellant by virtue of the accelerated promotion. As consequence thereof, under the rule of reservation, junior officers have become senior to the appellant or the similarly situated other employees. Therefore, stepping up of pay ought not have been provided under Para 6B of the Notification of Finance Department dated 23.07.2013. Having observed thus, the excess payment, made by that time, was directed to be recovered in monthly instalments. 3. The writ petition, challenging the directions in the memorandum dated 17.07.2017, was structured on the provision of Tripura State Civil Services [Revised Pay] Rules, 2009. Rule 14(6) is relevant and that has been relied by the petitioner in order to advance his challenge. The said rule provides for stepping up of pay. 3. The writ petition, challenging the directions in the memorandum dated 17.07.2017, was structured on the provision of Tripura State Civil Services [Revised Pay] Rules, 2009. Rule 14(6) is relevant and that has been relied by the petitioner in order to advance his challenge. The said rule provides for stepping up of pay. It has been provided under Rule 14(6) of ROP Rules, 2009 that ‘where pay of a junior become higher than that of his senior as result of providing the benefit of promotion followed by CAS-2 under TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules,1999 in comparison with his senior who was provided benefit of CAS-1 followed by promotion as per example cited below, the pay scale of the senior shall be stepped up to the higher pay scale provided to his junior from the same date junior got the higher pay.’ The example as cited below of that rule is as under: “Example: On completion of 10 years of service as LDC without promotion a senior LDC in the Department first got CAS benefit (from pay scale of Rs. 3300-7100 to Rs. 4000-7890/-) and then got promotion to the post of UDC in the pay scale of Rs. 4200-8650/-. Under the provision of CAS he consumed two upgradations. On the other hand, his junior first got promotion to the post of UDC (Rs. 4200-8650/-) from the post of LDC (Rs. 3300-7100/-) and thereafter on completion of 7 years of service as UDC without promotion he got CAS-2 benefit and moved to the pay scale of Rs. 5000-10300/- taking analogy that he had consumed CAS-1 while getting promotion to the post of UDC and thereafter on completion of 7 years of service as UDC without any further promotion he got benefit of CAS-2 in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-10300/-. As a result, pay scale of the senior UDC in the same Department became lower than his junior. To remove this anomaly, the pay scale of the senior shall be stepped up to the pay scale of Rs. 5000-10300/- with re-fixation of pay notionally from the date of arising such anomaly but with financial benefit from 01.01.2009.” 4. Reading of the said example leads us to an understanding that the pay of the senior UDC in the same department became less than that of his juniors. 5000-10300/- with re-fixation of pay notionally from the date of arising such anomaly but with financial benefit from 01.01.2009.” 4. Reading of the said example leads us to an understanding that the pay of the senior UDC in the same department became less than that of his juniors. To remove this anomaly the pay scale of the senior employee shall be stepped up in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-10300/- with fixation of pay notionally from the date of arising such anomaly but with financial benefit from 01.01.2009. On the basis of the said rule, by the memorandum dated 18.08.2015 [Annexure-3 to the writ petition] the appellant’s seniority in the grade of Assistant Investigator was considered for purpose of stepping up in terms of Rule 14(6) of the ROP Rule, 2009 along other 3[three] officers. It is noteworthy that no record has been produced to show that the appellant has been declared senior to those junior officers in the grade of Investigator. Even no such claim has been raised in the writ petition. 5. It had been ordered that the appellant’s pay in the post of Investigator will be stepped up to the level of his junior officers, namely Sri. Rajib Debbarma, Smt. M. Debbarma, Sri. Manoranjan Debbarma, Sri. R. Debbarma and Sri. P. Debbarma. It is apparent from the final seniority list that the appellant is senior to those officers in the grade of Assistant Investigator as on 31.07.2020. In the said list, the appellant’s name has figured at S. No. 7 whereas those officers who got promotion to the post of Investigator have been placed at S. No. 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, but they got their promotion much earlier against the vacancies which were earmarked for the ST candidates. Thus, the appellant could not get promotion even though he was senior to those officers in the inter se seniority list of Assistant Investigator, which is the feeder post for promotion to the post of Investigator. In this respect, there is no controversy. The appellant was promoted to the post of Investigator on 09.03.2010. Those officers belonging to the ST community were junior to the appellant in the grade of Assistant Investigator but they got promotion much earlier as the vacancies as were available were earmarked for ST candidates. In this respect, there is no controversy. The appellant was promoted to the post of Investigator on 09.03.2010. Those officers belonging to the ST community were junior to the appellant in the grade of Assistant Investigator but they got promotion much earlier as the vacancies as were available were earmarked for ST candidates. Those officers did not get CAS-1 as they did not complete 10 years of service in the grade of Assistant Investigator before they were promoted to the post of Investigator. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant got CAS-1 for completion of 10 years of service on 21.12.2007 as he was inducted in the service as Assistant Investigator on 22.12.1997. After waiting for another 3 years of getting CAS-1, as it appears form the records, the appellant was promoted to the post of Investigator. Since those officers, termed as the junior officers, had completed 7 years of service they got the financial movement to CAS-2 on 04.09.2011 and they were moved to the higher scale [CAS-2]. The appellant having noticed that his juniors [those officers] were getting higher pay than his, he felt aggrieved. Hence, he had made a representation on 29.07.2015 by contending that a ‘junior officer’ cannot get the higher pay than his senior officer in the same grade. 6. The memorandum dated 18.08.2015 was issued apparently in response to the said representation filed by the appellant on 29.07.2015 [Annexure-2 to the writ petition]. The appellant’s pay was enhanced equal to those junior officers from the pay scale of Rs. 5700-24000/- bringing his pay at Rs. 16,490/- which ‘junior officers’ were getting after they were moved to the pay scale of Rs. 5700-24000/- in terms of CAS-2. As stated, the said benefit has been recalled in terms of sub-Rule 6B of Rule 14 of ROP Rules, 2009 as incorporated in Tripura State Civil Services [Revised Pay] [Eighth Amendment] Rules, 2013. The said Sub-Rule provides as follows: “6B. The stepping up of Pay in the Pay Band/Grade Pay shall be done subject to the condition that both the senior and junior employees should borne in the same cadre and the posts under same Department with same lime of promotion.” 7. According to the appellant, that condition cannot be in his case a hindrance and hence, the memorandum dated 17.07.2015 is not sustainable. 8. According to the appellant, that condition cannot be in his case a hindrance and hence, the memorandum dated 17.07.2015 is not sustainable. 8. Per contra, the respondents have stated in Para-6 of their reply that sub Rule 6B of Rule 14 of Tripura State Civil Services [Revised Pay] Rules, 2009, as amended, provides that stepping up of Pay in the Pay Band/Grade Pay shall be done subject to the condition that both the senior and the junior employees should be borne in the same cadre and the posts shall be under the same Department with the same line of promotion. In the case in hand, the appellant was first appointed on 20.12.1997 as an Assistant Investigator. The appellant got the benefit of CAS-1 in the year 2008 and he got promoted to the post of Investigator by the order dated 09.03.2010 in the pre-revised pay scale, now revised. pay in the pay matrix, 2017. The junior of the appellant in the cadre of Assistant Investigator got CAS-1 on completion of 7 years of service in their promotional post. The appellant is admittedly not senior to those junior officers in the grade of Investigator. But for wrong committed by the concerned officer, by the memorandum dated 18.08.2015, the appellant was given the benefit of stepping up. When it has been discovered that such stepping up was grossly erroneous, the authority withdrew the said benefit by the memorandum dated 17.07.2017. 9. The learned single Judge while discarding the contention of the writ petitioner, the appellant herein, held that the appellant is not backed by the statutory provisions. The pay ‘anomaly’ as claimed to have existed between the appellant and his juniors did not arise on account of the juniors promotion without receiving the benefit of CAS-1 and the appellant, a senior in the feeder cadre, had received the benefit of CAS-1 and then got promotion. Had this been the situation, perhaps the petitioner was justified in contending that the case fell within the four corners of sub-Rule 6 of Rule 14 of the said amended rules, 2013. The principal provision has not been harmed in any manner insertion of Sub-Rule 6B. Thus, pay anomaly that has been identified did not arise when the juniors were granted the benefit of CAS-2 in the promotional cadre. The principal provision has not been harmed in any manner insertion of Sub-Rule 6B. Thus, pay anomaly that has been identified did not arise when the juniors were granted the benefit of CAS-2 in the promotional cadre. The disparity in the pay between the ‘juniors’ and the appellant arose on account of the juniors’ getting promotion ahead of the appellant since they belonged to the ST category and the promotional posts were all in the reserved category for the ST candidates and accordingly, they were promoted to the post of Investigator. 10. Learned Single Judge has succinctly observed as follows: When one is, therefore, referring to a senior getting less pay than the junior, one is necessarily comparing the position of the two employees in the related cadre. Sub-Rule 6 of Rule-14 will apply if an employee senior to his colleague in the promotional post is drawing less pay than the junior. Sub-Rule 6 of Rule-14 will not apply if a person who was junior in the feeder cadre, has for any reason become senior in the promotional post and is drawing more pay than a colleague who was his junior in the feeder cadre. In other words, comparison of pay between a senior and a junior can be done only if in the cadre in which such comparison is being made the person complaining of lesser pay is senior to whom he is comparing his pay with. 11. Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has criticized that finding. According to him, that finding is misconstruction of the Rule 14(6) of the ROP Rules, 2009 and from bare reading of Rule 14(6), it is clear that where pay of a junior become higher than that of his senior as result of providing the benefit of promotion followed by CAS-2 under TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999, compared with his senior who was provided benefit of CAS-1 followed by promotion, the pay scale of the senior shall be stepped up to the higher pay as provided to his junior from the same date when juniors got that higher pay. As consequence thereof, the memorandum dated 17.07.2017 is liable to be set aside as a whole. 12. Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned GA appearing for the respondents has at the beginning drawn attention of this court to sub-Rule 6(B) of Tripura State Civil Services Revised Pay (8th Amendment) Rules, 2013. As consequence thereof, the memorandum dated 17.07.2017 is liable to be set aside as a whole. 12. Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned GA appearing for the respondents has at the beginning drawn attention of this court to sub-Rule 6(B) of Tripura State Civil Services Revised Pay (8th Amendment) Rules, 2013. Sub-Rule 6(B) provides that the stepping up of Pay in the Pay Band/Grade Pay shall be done subject to the condition that both the senior and junior employees should be borne in the same cadre /the posts under same Department with same line of promotion. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned GA, the rule is unambiguous that the seniority of the employee claiming stepping up shall be in the same post. The appellant herein is not senior to those junior officers in the post of Investigator. Admittedly, the so called junior officers who got promotion before the appellant are senior in the post of the Investigator. On their completion of 7[seven] years in the grade of Investigator, those ‘junior officers’ had moved to the higher pay scale and resultantly started getting higher pay. Whether the appellant is entitled to stepping up of the pay to the level of the junior officer? According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned GA, the position of rule has been well explained in the memorandum dated 17.07.2017 where it has been unambiguously observed in Para-6B of the notification, referring to Sub-Rule 6B of the said Amendment Rules has clearly mentioned that the stepping up of Pay in the Pay Band/Grade Pay shall be done subject to the condition that both the senior and junior employees should be borne in the same cadre and the post under the same Department with the same line of promotion. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge calling for any intervention from this court. 13. Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned GA appearing for the respondents has referred a decision of the apex court in Union of India and Others vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair, (2020) 5 SCC 421 for urging this court that the expert bodies do recommend regulation and revision of the pay structure on taking into consideration the relevant factors and suggest after due examination to implement those recommendations within a framework. Unless the court takes a view that the order/scheme allowed by the government is not equitable one, ordinarily a direction would be given to the government or the authority for reexamination of the matter and taking a decision. According to this court, this decision is not much relevant for the present controversy. 14. It may be noted that the learned Single Judge has struck down the direction for recovery of excess pay that has been paid to the appellant by operation of the said memorandum dated 17.07.2017. The state has not preferred any appeal but during hearing of this appeal they have criticized the said direction of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the question that emerges in the face of the records is whether withdrawal of the benefit, as was granted by the memorandum dated 18.08.2015, by the impugned memorandum dated 17.07.2017 is sustainable or not. 15. We have given our anxious consideration to the grounds raised for criticizing the judgment dated 10.07.2020 whereby the learned Single Judge has held that the said withdrawal is perfect and in tune with the provisions of sub-Rule 6B of the ROP Rule, 2009 which has been inserted by way of the said Amendment Rules. Having read the Rule 14(6) with its example, this court has failed to persuade themselves to accept the contention of Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. On the contrary, by inserting Rule 14(6B) in the ROP Rules, 2009, it has been made more unambiguous. Unless the following conditions are fulfilled the stepping up of pay as contemplated by Rule 14(6) of the ROP Rules, 2009 cannot be granted: (i) Both the employees shall be in the same post in the same department. (ii) The employee who is claiming stepping up of his pay shall be senior to the employee who is getting higher pay. (iii) After the anomaly which led to a situation where the senior employee is getting lesser pay shall be as a result of fixation. For this purpose, aid can be taken from the example below Rule 14(6) of the ROP Rules, 2009. 16. In this case, the appellant is not senior to the officers who started getting the higher pay as they were granted CAS-2 for their completion of 7 years in the post of Investigator. For this purpose, aid can be taken from the example below Rule 14(6) of the ROP Rules, 2009. 16. In this case, the appellant is not senior to the officers who started getting the higher pay as they were granted CAS-2 for their completion of 7 years in the post of Investigator. Moreover, the appellant did not get the said upgradation of scale as he did not complete 7 years of service when his so called junior officers were granted the said upgradation of scale. Sine qua non of this rule is that in the same post the employee claiming higher pay by way of stepping up shall be the senior to the employee who has been drawing higher pay than the said senior employee. As it has been observed by this court that the appellant was not senior to the said officers in the post of Investigator, he is not entitled to stepping up of pay in terms of Rule 14(6) read with Rule 14(6B) of the ROP Rules, 2009. 17. The appeal, therefore, is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.