Competent authority directed to decide fresh pay-scale representations by a reasoned order within two months.

Twenty applicants, comprising retired Assistant Commissioners, Superintendents, Inspectors and the legal heir of a deceased Inspector of Central Excise/Customs, challenged orders of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs restricting the benefit of revised pay scales for Inspectors and Superintendents to officers who were parties to earlier judicial proceedings.

They claimed the revised scales of ₹6,500–10,500 and ₹7,500–12,000, respectively, with effect from 1 January 1996, along with consequential arrears and pensionary benefits.

The applicants relied upon decisions of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in Cyril Joseph v. Union of India, the Telangana High Court, the Supreme Court, and the Lucknow Bench in Ambika Prasad Tiwari & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Their joint prosecution of the proceedings was permitted under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, as they had a common cause of action.

During hearing, the applicants sought permission to submit fresh representations, with a direction to the competent authority to decide them by a reasoned and speaking order. The respondents opposed the request but sought two months’ time if such a direction were issued.

Whether the applicants were entitled to have their claim for the revised pay scales from 1 January 1996 considered on the basis of the judgments relied upon by them, rather than having the benefit restricted only to the parties in those proceedings?

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide fresh representations by applying the judgments in Cyril Joseph, the Telangana High Court decision, the Supreme Court order, and Ambika Prasad Tiwari?

Whether the applicants were entitled, at this stage, to a direct grant of the revised pay scales and consequential pensionary benefits?

The Tribunal applied Rule 4(5)(a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, permitting joint proceedings where applicants have a common cause of action.

It also applied the administrative-law requirement that a competent authority consider a representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

The Tribunal directed consideration of the applicants’ claims in the light of the decisions in Cyril Joseph & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., decided by the Hyderabad Bench on 9 January 2024; the judgment of the Telangana High Court dated 9 August 2024; the Supreme Court order dated 28 February 2025 in SLP (C) Diary No. 59005/2024; and the Lucknow Bench judgment dated 7 May 2026 in Ambika Prasad Tiwari & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

No final determination was made on the substantive entitlement to the revised pay scales.

The Tribunal did not examine the merits of the applicants’ claim that the earlier judgments operated as judgments in rem or that the revised scales were retrospectively payable from 1 January 1996.

Instead, it treated the request for consideration of fresh representations as an innocuous and appropriate relief.

Since the applicants asserted a common cause of action, their joint application was procedurally maintainable.

Balancing the applicants’ request with the respondents’ submission regarding the time required, the Tribunal directed the applicants to file fresh representations and required the competent authority to assess the factual similarity and applicability of the cited judgments, and to issue a reasoned and speaking order within the prescribed period.

The applicants were directed to submit fresh representations within two weeks from the date of the order.

The competent authority was directed to consider and decide those representations, in accordance with law and in the light of the cited judicial decisions, within two months from receipt of the representations, by passing a reasoned and speaking order and communicating it to the applicants.

The Tribunal expressly clarified that the competent authority must examine the similarity of facts and the applicability of the cited judgments to the applicants’ case.

There was no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.