Stepping up of pay

Stepping up of pay is the remedy, under Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum No. 4/3/2017-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 26 October 2018, by which a senior central government employee promoted on or after 1 January 2016 who draws less in the higher post than a junior promoted later to an identical post has pay raised to the junior’s figure, from the junior’s date of promotion. The order is effective from 1 January 2016, and the re-fixation it requires issues under Fundamental Rule 27.

The anomaly it cures comes out of pay fixation on promotion itself. Fundamental Rule 22(I)(a)(1), read with Rule 13 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, fixes promoted pay from the pay drawn in the lower post on the day of promotion. A junior who draws an annual increment in the feeder grade before being promoted carries one more cell into the pay matrix level of the higher post than a senior promoted a few months earlier.

The remedy is narrow. Paragraph 2(i) of the 2018 OM sets three conditions, and paragraph 3 lists eight situations in which a junior drawing more “do not constitute anomaly”. Three further stepping-up provisions sit inside the 2016 Rules (Rules 7(8), 7(10) and 10(3)), and the Modified Assured Career Progression scheme bars stepping up with one transitional exception. This article sets out each provision, the effect on the date of next increment and on pension, the limitation on arrears, and a worked Level 7 to Level 8 example.

The four stepping-up provisions

Four separate provisions step up a senior’s pay on promotion or fixation in the 7th CPC structure, and the claim has to be framed under the right one. Only the 2018 OM deals with the ordinary case of a promotion made on or after 1 January 2016; the other three deal with the migration to the pay matrix, promotions that straddle 1 January 2016, and merged grades. A fifth, transitional provision for MACP upgradations sits in paragraph 20 of Annexure-I to the MACP scheme.

Table: the four stepping-up provisions applying to central government civilian employees in the 7th CPC structure. Sources: DoPT OM No. 4/3/2017-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 26 October 2018; CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, G.S.R. 721(E) dated 25 July 2016.

How a junior comes to draw more than a senior

A junior overtakes a senior when the junior draws an annual increment in the lower post after the senior’s promotion and before the junior’s own. Rule 13 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 grants one increment in the level from which the employee is promoted and places the employee at the equal cell, or the next higher cell, in the level of the promoted post. The figure carried across is whatever the employee drew in the lower post on the date of promotion.

Rule 10 then sets the date of the first increment in the promoted level by a calendar window. Rule 10(2) gives an employee promoted between 2 January and 1 July, both days inclusive, the next increment on 1 January, and an employee promoted between 2 July and 1 January the next increment on 1 July. Paragraph 5 of Department of Expenditure OM No. 4-21/2017-IC/E.III(A) dated 31 July 2018 adds that six months of qualifying service in the promoted level must be strictly completed.

Two employees on the same cell and the same increment date can therefore end up one cell apart in the promoted level. The senior, promoted in March, carries the old cell across and waits for the following January. The junior draws the July increment, is promoted in August, and carries the higher cell across. Each year from July to December the junior is one cell ahead. The worked example below shows the figures.

DoPT Office Memorandum of 26 October 2018

DoPT Office Memorandum No. 4/3/2017-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 26 October 2018, issued under the subject “Stepping up of pay-Consolidated guidelines-reg.”, is the operative order for a senior promoted or appointed to a higher post on or after 1 January 2016. Its opening paragraph records that the guidelines had been “scattered in various OMs” and that frequent references kept reaching DoPT, and it restates them for the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016.

Paragraph 2(i) is the operative grant. To remove the anomaly of a Government servant promoted or appointed to a higher post on or after 1 January 2016 drawing lower pay in that post than a junior “in the lower grade and promoted or appointed subsequently to another identical post”, the senior’s pay “should be stepped up to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for the junior Government servant in that higher post”. The stepping up takes effect from the date of promotion or appointment of the junior.

The rest of the order is short. Paragraph 2(ii) governs the re-fixation order and the next increment. Paragraph 3 lists the eight situations that are not anomalies. Paragraph 4 supersedes Department of Expenditure OM No. F.2(78)-E.III(A)/63 dated 2 February 1966 and DoPT OM No. 4/7/92-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 4 November 1993. Paragraph 5 makes the OM effective from 1 January 2016, and paragraph 6 records that it was issued after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General for staff of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department.

The 2018 OM is addressed to all Ministries and Departments of the Government of India and regulates pay fixed under FR 22(I)(a)(1) and the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016. Railway servants and members of the All India Services draw pay under their own codes, so a claim from either service starts from the corresponding provision of that code.

The three conditions in paragraph 2(i)

Paragraph 2(i) of the 26 October 2018 OM makes stepping up subject to three conditions, and all three must hold:

1. Same cadre, identical posts. Both the junior and the senior “should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted are identical in the same cadre”. A junior in a different cadre, or a different post in the same cadre, is not a comparator.
2. Identical levels. The level in the pay matrix of the lower post and of the higher post in which they are entitled to draw pay must be identical for both. A senior whose feeder post sat in Level 6 cannot compare with a junior promoted from a Level 7 feeder post, even into the same Level 8 post.
3. A direct FR 22 anomaly. The anomaly must be “directly as a result of the application of the provisions of Fundamental Rule 22(I)(a)(1) read with Rule 13 of CCS(RP)Rules, 2016”.

The third condition requires the junior’s higher pay to trace to the promotion fixation and to nothing else. A junior ahead because of leave, the date of joining, the mode of recruitment, or a personal increment fails it, and paragraph 3 lists those causes one by one.

The advance-increment example

The OM gives one example under the third condition: “if the junior officer was drawing more pay in the existing pay structure than the senior by virtue of any advance increments granted to him”, stepping up is not invoked. Advance increments are personal to the employee who earns them, for example on a recruitment qualification or as an incentive, so a junior carried ahead by them into the promoted level is ahead for a reason the promotion rule did not create.

The same proviso appears in Rule 7(10) of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 and in paragraph 20 of Annexure-I to the MACP scheme. All three stepping-up provisions that compare a senior with a later-promoted junior carry it.

The eight situations that are not anomalies

Paragraph 3 of the 26 October 2018 OM lists eight “instances/events wherein juniors draw more pay than seniors” that “do not constitute anomaly”, and stepping up is not admissible in any of them. A note under the list states that the instances are “only illustrative and not exhaustive”.

Table: paragraph 3 of DoPT OM No. 4/3/2017-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 26 October 2018. The OM states the list is illustrative and not exhaustive.

Clause 3(f) runs in one direction only. The senior is the direct recruit and the junior is the promotee. The OM’s own example is the Central Secretariat Service: a Senior Secretariat Assistant promoted as Assistant Section Officer has pay fixed under FR 22(I)(a)(1) on the pay drawn as SSA, while a directly recruited ASO enters at the first cell of the level under Rule 8, and “the senior ASO (DR) cannot claim pay parity with that of the promotee junior ASO”. The promotee’s longer service in the feeder grade is what puts the promotee ahead.

Clauses 3(c) and 3(g) are the two ad hoc bars, and they work differently. Clause 3(g) compares two ad hoc appointees. Clause 3(c) covers a senior away on deputation whose junior was promoted ad hoc in the parent cadre and later regularised; the junior’s higher pay from the ad hoc spell and from the regular promotion that follows it is outside stepping up. The wider consequences of ad hoc service are covered at ad hoc appointment.

Clauses 3(a), 3(d) and 3(e) share a test. In each, the senior was already behind the junior, in the lower grade or in the date of joining, before the promotion rule ran. The OM treats a gap that existed before the promotions as outside stepping up. Extraordinary leave that does not count for increment postpones the increment under FR 26, which is why clause 3(a) names it.

Re-fixation under FR 27 and the next increment

Paragraph 2(ii) of the 26 October 2018 OM provides that the order re-fixing the senior’s pay “shall be issued under Fundamental Rule 27”, and that the senior “shall be entitled to the next increment on completion of his required qualifying service with effect from the date of re-fixation of pay”. FR 27 is the rule under which an authority may grant a premature increment, which is why it is the vehicle for raising the senior’s pay to a cell the senior has not reached by time.

The second half of paragraph 2(ii) moves the senior’s increment cycle. The re-fixation takes effect from the junior’s date of promotion, so the qualifying service for the senior’s next increment is counted from the same day as the junior’s. A senior who kept an earlier increment date after being stepped up would draw the next cell before the junior, and the reset keeps the senior’s pay equal to the junior’s instead of above it.

The OM does not name a calendar date for that next increment. Rule 10 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 allows increments only on 1 January and 1 July, and the Department of Expenditure applied a six-month qualifying-service test to the first increment after an FR 22(I)(a)(1) re-fixation in OM No. 4-21/2017-IC/E.IIIA dated 28 November 2019, on the analogy of its 31 July 2018 OM. The re-fixation order should record the date, and the senior’s service book should show it, because every later increment runs from it.

Stepping up and the FR 22(I)(a)(1) option

The option in FR 22(I)(a)(1) can prevent the anomaly that stepping up cures. Within one month of promotion, the employee may choose to have pay fixed from the date of promotion or from the date of the next increment in the lower post. On the second choice, two increments accrue on that date: the annual increment in the lower level, and then the promotional increment on top of it. The current text of the clause was substituted by DoPT Notification No. 13/1/2017-Estt.(Pay-I), G.S.R. 370, dated 19 November 2018.

A senior promoted before the lower-post increment date who opts for fixation from that increment date lands at the cell a junior promoted after the same increment date would reach, and often higher. The comparison of the two choices, with figures, is at option for pay fixation on promotion.

The 26 October 2018 OM says nothing about the option. Neither its three conditions nor its eight excluded situations mention a senior who chose fixation from the date of promotion. Two later orders matter for a senior whose anomaly came from that choice. DoPT OM No. 13/02/2017-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 28 August 2018 allowed those promoted between 1 January 2016 and 27 July 2017 to revise the option. Paragraph 7 of DoE OM No. 4-21/2017-IC/E.IIIA dated 28 November 2019 gave every employee regularly promoted or granted financial upgradation on or after 1 January 2016 a further opportunity to exercise or re-exercise it. Outside those windows, a revised option needs an unforeseen development or change of rules under paragraph 2 of DoPT OM No. 16/8/2000-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 25 February 2003.

A worked example on a Level 7 to Level 8 promotion

The figures below are a salary-calculator.in construction from the cells of Level 7 and Level 8 in Schedule Part A of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, applying Rule 13, Rule 10(2) and the DoE OMs of 31 July 2018 and 28 November 2019. The two employees are in the same cadre, both in Level 7 at Rs. 47,600 with the annual increment on 1 July, and the senior ranks above the junior.

• Senior. Promoted to a Level 8 post on 1 March 2024 and opts for fixation from the date of promotion. One increment in Level 7 takes Rs. 47,600 to Rs. 49,000, and Level 8 has a cell at Rs. 49,000, so the senior is placed there. A promotion between 2 January and 1 July puts the next increment on 1 January 2025, at Rs. 50,500.
• Junior. Draws the Level 7 increment on 1 July 2024, to Rs. 49,000, and is promoted to an identical Level 8 post on 1 August 2024, also opting for fixation from the date of promotion. One increment in Level 7 takes Rs. 49,000 to Rs. 50,500, and the junior is placed at Rs. 50,500 in Level 8. A promotion between 2 July and 1 January puts the next increment on 1 July 2025, at Rs. 52,000.

Table: the anomaly without stepping up. Cells from Schedule Part A, CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016; increment dates under Rule 10(2).

All three conditions in paragraph 2(i) of the 26 October 2018 OM hold: same cadre and identical posts, the same Level 7 feeder post and the same Level 8 promoted post, and an anomaly produced by Rule 13 applied on two different dates. None of the eight bars in paragraph 3 applies. The senior’s pay is stepped up to Rs. 50,500 from 1 August 2024 by an order under FR 27.

From that date the senior’s increment is counted from 1 August 2024. The 2018 OM says only “required qualifying service”; reading it with Rule 10 and the six-month test of the DoE OMs of 31 July 2018 and 28 November 2019, which is this site’s reading and not a stated rule, the first 1 January or 1 July after six months is 1 July 2025, the junior’s date, so the senior moves to Rs. 52,000 on 1 July 2025 and Rs. 53,600 on 1 July 2026, and the two draw the same pay at every date. The arrears of basic pay to 30 June 2026 come to Rs. 16,500: Rs. 1,500 a month for the five months from August to December 2024, and Rs. 1,500 a month for the six months from July to December 2025. Dearness allowance is payable on the difference at the rate in force in each month.

The senior’s choice of option is what produced this anomaly. Had the senior opted for fixation from the next increment date, 1 July 2024, the senior would have received the Level 7 increment to Rs. 49,000 and the promotional increment to Rs. 50,500 on that date, and been placed at Rs. 50,500 in Level 8 a month before the junior’s promotion. The next increment would then fall on 1 January 2025 under Issue No. 2 of the 28 November 2019 OM, at Rs. 52,000, ahead of the junior. Under option B the senior draws provisional pay in Level 8 from 1 March to 30 June 2024, and from 1 January 2025 draws one cell more than the junior. In a case like this one, the option was worth more than stepping up.

Stepping up inside the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016

The CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, notified as G.S.R. 721(E) dated 25 July 2016, contain three stepping-up provisions of their own, separate from the 26 October 2018 DoPT OM. None of them depends on the OM, and each has its own trigger.

Rule 7(8) deals with the migration to the pay matrix on 1 January 2016. Where a senior who drew more pay in the pre-revised structure than a junior in the same cadre is fixed in the revised structure at a stage lower than the junior, the senior’s pay is stepped up to the same stage as the junior’s. The trigger is the fixation formula of Rule 7 itself, not a promotion.

Rule 7(10) covers promotions that straddle 1 January 2016. Under Rule 7(10)(i), a senior promoted to a higher post before 1 January 2016 who draws less in the revised structure than a junior promoted to the same higher post on or after that date is stepped up to the junior’s pay from the junior’s date of promotion. It carries four conditions: both belong to the same cadre and hold identical promoted posts; the existing and revised pay structures of the lower and higher posts are identical; the senior drew equal or more pay than the junior at the time of promotion; and the anomaly results directly from FR 22 or another rule regulating pay fixation on promotion. The advance-increment proviso applies, and Rule 7(10)(ii) requires the order under FR 27 with the next increment counted from re-fixation.

The 26 October 2018 OM has no counterpart to the third Rule 7(10) condition, that the senior drew equal or more pay than the junior when promoted. Clauses 3(a) and 3(e) of the OM reach the same result in the two commonest cases, extraordinary leave and later appointment to the lower post, without stating the general test.

Rule 10(3) deals with merged grades. Where two existing grades in a hierarchy are merged and a junior from the lower grade comes to draw more pay in the corresponding level than a senior, the senior’s pay is stepped up to the junior’s from the same date, and the senior then draws the next increment under Rule 10. The date of next increment article covers this sub-rule with the increment windows.

MACP upgradations

Stepping up is barred under the Modified Assured Career Progression scheme. Paragraph 9 of DoPT OM No. 35034/3/2015-Estt.(D) dated 22 October 2019 provides that no stepping up of pay in the level is admissible where a junior draws more pay than a senior on account of pay fixation under the scheme. Paragraph 20 of Annexure-I repeats the bar, on the ground that a financial upgradation under the MACP scheme is personal to the employee and has no relevance to seniority. The Supreme Court’s judgment of 5 March 2020 in Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair records the same bar at paragraph 10 of the earlier scheme OM, No. 35034/3/2008-Estt.(D) dated 19 May 2009.

Paragraph 20 of Annexure-I keeps one transitional exception, tied to the change of pay structure on 1 January 2016. A senior granted MACP to a higher grade pay before 1 January 2016 who draws less in the revised structure than a junior granted MACP to the higher level on or after that date is stepped up to the junior’s pay from the date of the junior’s MACP. Four conditions apply: both belong to the same cadre and are in the same pay level on grant of MACP; the existing and revised pay structures are identical; the senior drew equal or more pay than the junior at the time of the grant; and the anomaly results directly from FR 22 or another pay-fixation rule. The advance-increment proviso applies here as well.

The Supreme Court did not decide the MACP stepping-up question in Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair, Civil Appeal No. 2016 of 2020, decided on 5 March 2020. The Court held that MACP under the 2009 scheme is placement in the “immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands and grade pay”, and not the grade pay of the next promotional post. The judgment records that the appeals raising whether employees were entitled to stepping up to the grade pay of juniors under the MACP scheme “ordered to be de-tagged and listed separately”. The bar therefore rests on paragraph 9 of the 2019 OM. The differences between the two routes are set out at MACP vs promotion.

Effect on allowances, pension and contributions

Stepping up raises basic pay, and every element worked as a percentage of basic pay follows it from the effective date. Dearness allowance, currently 60% of basic pay from 1 January 2026 under DoE OM No. 1/1(i)/2026-E.II(B) dated 22 April 2026, and house rent allowance are both percentages of basic pay, so the arrears of a stepping-up order include the difference in each for every month from the junior’s date of promotion.

Pension follows where the stepped-up pay is drawn at or near retirement. Rule 31 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 defines emoluments by reference to basic pay, and Rule 44 works pension on emoluments, so a stepped-up basic pay enters the last emoluments and the ten-month average on which pension is calculated, and the last emoluments on which retirement gratuity is calculated. A stepping-up order issued after retirement, with effect from a date during service, requires the pension, and the dearness relief worked on it, to be revised. For a subscriber to the National Pension System, the employee’s 10% and the government’s 14% are worked on basic pay plus dearness allowance, and the Unified Pension Scheme contributions are worked on the same base, so the contributions for the arrears period are recomputed as well.

Claiming stepping up, limitation and arrears

Stepping up is not applied automatically. The senior applies to the head of office or the cadre controlling authority and sets out the facts the order needs to test: the junior’s name, both dates of promotion, the pay fixed for each on promotion, the increment dates of both in the lower post, and the option each exercised under FR 22(I)(a)(1). Those facts settle the three conditions in paragraph 2(i) of the 26 October 2018 OM and show whether any of the eight bars in paragraph 3 applies.

A refusal, or a representation left undecided, goes to the Central Administrative Tribunal. Section 21(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 allows one year from the final order on the appeal or representation. Section 21(1)(b) allows one year from the expiry of six months after the representation was made, where no final order has been passed.

Delay does not defeat the claim itself, but it limits the arrears. In M.R. Gupta v. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 628, the Supreme Court treated a grievance about pay fixation as a continuing wrong. In Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, decided on 13 August 2008, the Court held that relief on re-fixation of pay may be granted despite delay because it does not affect the rights of third parties, but that the consequential arrears are normally restricted to three years before the date of filing. A senior who discovers the anomaly years later can still have the pay stepped up from the junior’s date of promotion, while the arrears actually paid may be cut back.

Where the junior’s higher pay falls outside every stepping-up provision, the remaining route is a general pay anomaly, taken through the departmental and national anomaly committees of the Joint Consultative Machinery. That route and its limits are covered at pay anomaly and the anomaly committee.

History of the stepping-up orders

The 26 October 2018 OM consolidated two earlier orders, both named in its margin and superseded by its paragraph 4: Department of Expenditure OM No. F.2(78)-E.III(A)/63 dated 2 February 1966, and DoPT OM No. 4/7/92-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 4 November 1993. Both were framed for the pay scales of their time, and the 2018 OM restated their substance against the pay matrix and Rule 13.

DoPT has also issued cadre-specific stepping-up orders for the Central Secretariat Service, on senior Assistants drawing less pay than their juniors on promotion to the Section Officer grade. Clause 3(f) of the 2018 OM takes its direct-recruit example from the same service.

The 8th Central Pay Commission

The 8th Central Pay Commission, constituted on 3 November 2025 under Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai, has not reported, and no revised pay rules under it have been notified. The 26 October 2018 OM is framed around Rule 13 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, so its references will need to be read against whatever rule replaces Rule 13 when new revised pay rules are notified. The 8th Central Pay Commission article tracks the commission’s terms of reference and timetable.

Related Articles

• Pay fixation on promotion
• Option for pay fixation on promotion
• Pay fixation
• Fundamental Rule 22
• Fundamental Rule 27
• Fundamental Rules
• Date of next increment
• Annual increment
• CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016
• Pay matrix
• Pay anomaly and the anomaly committee
• Modified Assured Career Progression
• MACP vs promotion
• Promotion
• Seniority
• Direct recruitment
• Ad hoc appointment
• Deputation in central government
• Extraordinary leave
• Personal pay
• Pay fixation on reversion
• Withholding of increment
• Stagnation increment
• Grade pay
• Pay band
• Dearness allowance
• House rent allowance
• Emoluments
• Central government pension
• National Pension System
• Unified Pension Scheme
• Central Administrative Tribunal
• Central Secretariat Service
• Assistant Section Officer salary
• Section Officer salary
• Department of Personnel and Training
• Department of Expenditure
• 8th Central Pay Commission
• Central government employees in India
• Take-home salary of central government employees

External references

• Department of Personnel and Training: Stepping up of pay, consolidated guidelines (node page)
• Department of Personnel and Training
• Department of Expenditure: pay related matters
• CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, gazette notification of 25 July 2016
• Department of Expenditure OM dated 31 July 2018 on the date of next increment
• Department of Expenditure: orders and circulars

References

1. Department of Personnel and Training, Office Memorandum No. 4/3/2017-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 26 October 2018, “Stepping up of pay-Consolidated guidelines”: paragraph 2(i) (grant and three conditions, advance-increment example), paragraph 2(ii) (order under FR 27, next increment from re-fixation), paragraph 3 (eight situations not constituting an anomaly), paragraph 4 (supersession of DoE OM No. F.2(78)-E.III(A)/63 dated 2 February 1966 and DoPT OM No. 4/7/92-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 4 November 1993), paragraph 5 (effective from 1 January 2016).
2. Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, G.S.R. 721(E), Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, dated 25 July 2016: Rules 7(8), 7(10), 8, 10 and 13, and Schedule Part A (pay matrix).
3. Fundamental Rules 22(I)(a)(1), 26 and 27; DoPT Notification No. 13/1/2017-Estt.(Pay-I), G.S.R. 370, dated 19 November 2018 (substituted text of FR 22(I)(a)(1)).
4. Department of Expenditure, OM No. 4-21/2017-IC/E.III(A) dated 31 July 2018 (first increment after promotion, six months’ qualifying service) and OM No. 4-21/2017-IC/E.IIIA dated 28 November 2019 (Issue No. 2, increment after FR 22(I)(a)(1) re-fixation; paragraph 7, re-exercise of option).
5. DoPT OM No. 13/02/2017-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 27 July 2017 and 28 August 2018 (option on promotion); DoPT OM No. 16/8/2000-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 25 February 2003 (revised option).
6. DoPT OM No. 35034/3/2015-Estt.(D) dated 22 October 2019 (Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme), paragraph 9 and Annexure-I paragraph 20; DoPT OM No. 35034/3/2008-Estt.(D) dated 19 May 2009, paragraph 10.
7. Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair, Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 2016 of 2020, decided 5 March 2020.
8. M.R. Gupta v. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 628; Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, decided 13 August 2008.
9. Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Section 21; CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, Rules 31 and 44.