Authorities must verify parity and grant retrospective pay benefits where the case is identical to settled precedent.

The applicant, an employee of the Department of Revenue working in the cadre of Inspectors/Superintendents under the CBIC, challenged the grant of an upgraded/revised pay scale from 21 April 2004 instead of 1 January 1996.

He filed the Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking notional and actual revision of pay, arrears, consequential benefits, and refixation of salary/pension from 1 January 1996.

The applicant relied upon the order of the CAT, Hyderabad Bench, in O.A. No. 1089/2019 and connected matters, which directed grant of the enhanced pay scale to similarly situated Superintendents from 1 January 1996 on a notional basis, along with consequential arrears.

The Supreme Court dismissed the Union of India’s SLP (Civil) Diary No. 59005/2024 on 28 February 2025.

Whether the applicant’s claim for the upgraded pay scale from 1 January 1996, instead of 21 April 2004, is identical in facts and controversy to the claims decided in the orders of the CAT, Hyderabad Bench, and the High Court of Telangana?

Whether the applicant should be granted the same relief as the employees covered by those decisions, subject to verification by the respondents?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, governing applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

It applied the principle of parity and non-discrimination in service matters by relying on the CAT, Hyderabad Bench’s order dated 9 January 2024 in O.A. No. 1089/2019 and connected matters, the Telangana High Court’s judgment dated 9 August 2024 in W.P. No. 10490/2024, and the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the related SLP on 28 February 2025.

The governing principle was that similarly situated Inspectors/Superintendents under the Department of Revenue, including employees of the CBIC, should receive equivalent treatment where the facts and controversy are identical to those already adjudicated.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s grievance concerned the same retrospective date for grant of the upgraded pay scale—1 January 1996 instead of 21 April 2004—that had been considered in the Hyderabad and Telangana proceedings.

Those decisions had attained finality for the purposes of the issue after the Supreme Court dismissed the Union’s SLP.

However, rather than granting the relief automatically, the Tribunal directed the respondents first to verify whether the applicant’s service facts, cadre, entitlement, and controversy were identical to those in the cited cases.

If the respondents found the cases to be identical, they were required to extend the same relief to the applicant within three months of receiving the certified copy of the order.

It directed the respondents to determine whether the applicant was similarly situated to the employees covered by the Hyderabad Bench and Telangana High Court decisions.

If so, the respondents were directed to grant him relief on identical terms, including the benefit of the upgraded pay scale from 1 January 1996, within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The Original Application was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.