JUDGMENT : K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J. The present OP(CAT) is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.A.No.635/2016 dated 19.02.2021, whereby the following claim of the applicants were allowed. "i) Call for the records leading up to Annexure A-16 and A-18 to A-22 and to quash the same. ii) Direct the respondents to step up the pay of the applicants and equate the same to the pay drawn by their juniors Ms. P. sudha Devi, Ms. Shylamole Wilson Jacob, Ms. E. Lalithambal, Ms. Rollin Patricia and again Ms. P. Sudha Devi respectively with effect from 19.05.2003. 31.08.2005, 19.02.2003, 01.12.2000 and 19.05.2003 from which day respective juniors started getting higher pay. (iii) Direct the respondent to refix the pension payable and other retirement benefits, on the basis of the refixation of the applicants pay as aforesaid" 2. The facts in brief necessary for disposal of this OP(CAT) is as follows: The applicants (five in numbers) were appointed as Lower Division Clerks in the office of the petitioners on various dates. Thereafter, they were promoted as Upper Division Clerk (Accountant). Some of the juniors of the respondents/applicants were drawing a higher pay than the seniors due to the grant of Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) to juniors and their pay was fixed at a higher level. Therefore, the respondents/applicants sought a direction for the re-fixation of pay. 3. The Tribunal, as per order dated 19.02.2021, directed the petitioners to step up the pay of the applicants to the level of their juniors and grant consequential reliefs. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents/applicants supported the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners/Union of India and its officers submitted that the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is legally unsustainable. 6. We have heard the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. 7. Adv.K.I. Mayankutty Mather, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal is not justified in directing the petitioners to step up the pay of the respondents/applicants to the level of their juniors and to grant consequential reliefs. 8. The short question involved in this case is whether, seniors are entitled for stepping up of pay when their juniors are drawing more pay due to the grant of ACP Scheme?. 9. 8. The short question involved in this case is whether, seniors are entitled for stepping up of pay when their juniors are drawing more pay due to the grant of ACP Scheme?. 9. The Tribunal allowed the claim noticing the rival contentions of the parties. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder: “6. The applicants in this case mainly relied upon G. Santhanam & Others v. Union of India and Others in O.A.No. 234/2017 of C.A.T, Madras Bench and All India Postal Accounts Employees Association and Another v. Union of India and Others in O.A. No. 2124/2011 of the C.A.T, Principal Beneh and Ram Chand Chelani v. Union of India and Others decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in W.P No. 4913/2012 (S) dated 24.03.2014 in support of their case. 7. According to the counsel for the applicants, the applicants were drawing lesser pay than their juniors due to the anomaly which has happened when ACP was granted. According to the counsel for the applicants, they are entitled to the stepping up of their pay at par with their juniors. According to the counsel, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana and Others v. Ram Sarup Ganda and Others reported in 2011 (15) SCC 772 , has clearly held that if there is an anomaly that senior government servant drawing a lesser pay than their junior, he is entitled to get his pay stepped up in order to bring it at par with his junior. In the case of Ram Chand Chelani v. Union of India and Others is also a similar case and directly applicable to the present case. 8. The counsel for the respondents would contend that a Scheme of granting ACP clearly states that it is purely personal and there is no scope for junior senior fixation. It was also contented that the cases referred by the applicants cannot be directly applied and as they are all judgments in persona. 9. We have gone through the pleadings and various judgments produced before the Tribunal. It was also contented that the cases referred by the applicants cannot be directly applied and as they are all judgments in persona. 9. We have gone through the pleadings and various judgments produced before the Tribunal. On perusal of the pleadings, we see that even the respondents had admitted that the applicants in this case were appointed prior to the appointment of the juniors and the anomaly occurred because the juniors were appointed to the post of UD Clerk initially and they got only one promotion and hence those appointed directly as UD Clerk got their 2nd ACP. On the other hand, the applicants got two promotions and they could not be granted the same benefit. Anyhow, the respondents had admitted that the pay of the applicants are lesser when compared to their juniors mentioned in the O.A. So, there is an anomaly in the pay due to the granting of ACP. Whether the applicants in this case are entitled to get a stepping up of pay to the level of heir juniors is the only question to be decided. The applicants had produced a series of judgments which shows that the matter was in dispute from 2011 onwards. The Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 2124/2011 had considered the same question in the Postal Department and it was held that the applicants are entitled to get the stepping up of pay to the level of their juniors A similar case arose before the Madras Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.No. 234/2017 and was ordered for stepping up of pay as claimed by the applicants The Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh had an occasion to consider the same issue in Ram Chand Chelani v. Union of India and Others in W.P No. 4913/2012 . In that case, the applicant was first appointed as Clerk in the year 1967 and thereafter promoted as Auditor in the year 1972. One Mr, Kamalakar Jogi was appointed directly as Auditor in the year 1973. The petitioner therein was promoted to the post of Senior Auditor in the year 1990 and then Mr. Kamalakar Jogi was promoted as Senior Auditor on 03.08.1990. When the Assured Carrier Promotion Scheme was implemented, Kamalakar Jogi was granted upgradation to the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 and his pay was fixed as Rs. 7300/- ?? 09.08.1999. The petitioner therein was promoted to the post of Senior Auditor in the year 1990 and then Mr. Kamalakar Jogi was promoted as Senior Auditor on 03.08.1990. When the Assured Carrier Promotion Scheme was implemented, Kamalakar Jogi was granted upgradation to the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 and his pay was fixed as Rs. 7300/- ?? 09.08.1999. The present applicant was denied the upgradation and he was fixed at the pay of Rs. 5500-9000 and his pay was fixed at Rs. 7075/- at that time. It is a similar case and the Hon'ble High Court had granted stepping up of pay to the level of his junior. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Ram Sarup Ganda & Others (2011) 15 SCC 772 has clearly laid down the law that when there is anomaly between the pay of a senior and junior, the senior is entitled to get a stepping up of pay on par with his junior. The same principle had to be adopted in this case also. The applicants in this case had joined the service as LD Clerk and they were promoted as UD Clerk and thereafter to the post of Senior Accountant. But the juniors who came as UD Clerk got ACP and financial upgradation and their pay was fixed at higher level. So, we find merit in the contentions put forward by the applicants in this case. We are in full agreement with the decisions of C.A.T Chandigarh Bench in. O A No. 156/2009 and Principal Bench decision in O.A. No. 2124/2011 . We find that the applicants herein are also entitled to get the very same benefit. In State of Up & Others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Another reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 , the Hon'ble apex Court held: The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by Court, all similarly situated persons need to be treated alike by extending the benefit. Not doing so will be discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had clearly held in State of Haryana Ram Sarup Ganda & Others referred supra that when an anomaly arises where juniors are getting higher pay, the seniors are entitled to get their pay stepped up. Not doing so will be discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had clearly held in State of Haryana Ram Sarup Ganda & Others referred supra that when an anomaly arises where juniors are getting higher pay, the seniors are entitled to get their pay stepped up. We find that the applicants herein are also entitled to get their pay stepped up to the level of juniors from the dates on which such anomaly had arisen. 11. In the result, we hereby allow the O.A. The respondents are directed to step up the pay of the applicants to the level of their juniors and grant consequential reliefs within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.” 10. The issue involved in this case has already been pondered by the Division Bench of this Court in OP(CAT) No.116/2019. The relevant paragraphs of OP(CAT) No.116/2019 are extracted hereunder: “9. The issue involved in this Original Petition is covered in the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. C. R. Madhava Murthy & Anr. [Civil Appeal Nos.2087- 2088 of 200] . The relevant paragraphs of the judgment in C. R. Madhava Murthy ’s case (supra) are extracted hereunder: “5. The High Court has therefore rightly relied and/or considered FR 22 and the order issued by the Government of India on removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay, which reads as under: - "(22) Removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay of Senior on promotion drawing less pay than his his junior (a) As a result of application of FR 22-C. [Now FR 22 (I) (a) (1)]. In order to remove the anomaly of a Government servant promoted or appointed to a higher post on or after 1-4- 1961 drawing a lower rate of pay in that post than another Government servant junior to him in the lower grade and promoted or appointed subsequently to another identical post, it has been decided in such cases the pay of the senior officer in the higher post should be stepped up to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for the junior officer in that higher post. The stepping up should be done with effect from the date of promotion or appointment of the junior officer and will be subject to the following conditions, namely: - (a) Both the junior and senior officers should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted or appointed should be identical and in the same cadre: (b) The scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical: (c) The anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of FR-22-C. For example, if even in the lower post the junior officer draws from time to time a higher rate of pay than the senior by virtue of grant of advance Increments, the above provisions will not be invoked to step up the pay of the senior officer." The orders refixing the pay of the senior officers I accordance with the above provisions shall be issued under FR-27. The next increment of the senior officer will be drawn on completion of the requisite qualifying service with effect from the date of refixation of pay- [G.I., M.F., 0.M. No.F.2 (78)-E.III (A)/66, dated the 4th February, 1966)". 6. Therefore, it was a case where a junior was drawing more pay on account of upgradation under the ACP Scheme and there was an anomaly and therefore, the pay of senior was required to be stepped up. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has rightly directed the appellants herein to step up the pay of the original writ petitioners keeping in view of pay scale which has been granted to the juniors from the date they have started drawing lesser pay than their juniors. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. No interference of this Court is called for.” 11. In view of the judgment in OP(CAT) No.116/2019, the issue involved in this case is no longer res integra. OP(CAT) No.54/2021 fails and is dismissed.