Authorities must decide pending representations on parity claims without the Tribunal adjudicating their merits.

The applicants, who had served as Inspectors in the Central Excise Department and thereafter joined the Income Tax Department after technical resignation, challenged the prospective implementation of revised pay scales from 21.04.2004.

They claimed that similarly situated employees had received the benefit notionally from 01.01.1996.

Their claim relied on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in WPCT No. 21 of 2015, the recommendations of a Special Anomaly Committee, and the Government’s order dated 22.09.2023 extending the benefit to certain similarly placed Income Tax officers.

The applicants had submitted representations dated 17.03.2025 and 26.09.2025, which remained undecided.

They therefore filed the Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking consideration of their representations, implementation of the alleged parity, revision of pay notionally from 01.01.1996, and arrears from 21.04.2004.

The respondents opposed the application, principally contending that it was barred by limitation and that the applicants were fence-sitters.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicants’ pending representations concerning notional pay revision from 01.01.1996, in light of the Calcutta High Court judgment in WPCT No. 21 of 2015 and the Government order dated 22.09.2023?

Whether the Tribunal should itself grant the claimed pay revision and arrears, notwithstanding the respondents’ objection regarding limitation and the applicants allegedly being fence-sitters?

The applicants invoked Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which provides the jurisdictional basis for challenging service-related grievances before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal also applied Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 in allowing the applicants’ miscellaneous application for joint consideration.

The substantive claim was examined by reference to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in WPCT No. 21 of 2015, the recommendations of the Special Anomaly Committee, and the Government order dated 22.09.2023 concerning notional pay fixation from 01.01.1996.

However, the Tribunal did not determine the applicants’ entitlement on merits; it directed administrative consideration while expressly keeping all issues open.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants asserted parity with employees who had allegedly received notional pay revision from 01.01.1996, whereas their benefit had been granted only prospectively from 21.04.2004.

Since the applicants’ representations remained pending, the Tribunal considered it appropriate for the competent authority to examine the claim in the context of the Calcutta High Court judgment and the Government order dated 22.09.2023.

The respondents’ limitation objection and allegation that the applicants were fence-sitters were not adjudicated at this stage.

Instead, the Tribunal treated the Original Application as part of the applicants’ representations and directed a reasoned administrative decision, thereby avoiding any final determination of the underlying pay-fixation entitlement.

The competent respondent authority was directed to examine and decide the applicants’ pending representations, treating the Original Application as part thereof, in light of the Calcutta High Court’s judgment in WPCT No. 21 of 2015 and the Government order dated 22.09.2023, and to communicate its decision within four months from receipt of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

The Tribunal expressly kept all points, including limitation and the applicants’ substantive entitlement to pay revision and arrears, open for consideration.

No costs were awarded, and pending applications were also disposed of.