Facts
The applicant, Mukesh Kumar Khandelwal, a Superintendent of Central GST & Customs, filed the present Original Application (OA No. 96/2026) aggrieved by the denial of the benefit of an upgraded pay scale with retrospective effect from 01.01.1996.
Source reference: p.2, para.3An application for condonation of delay (MA No. 107/2026) was also filed and allowed.
Source reference: p.2, para.2The applicant's counsel submitted that this Tribunal and various coordinate benches had previously accepted identical claims from Inspectors/Superintendents for the enhanced pay scale from 01.01.1996 instead of 21.04.2004, and the Department of Revenue had issued an order dated 24.11.2025 extending this benefit to applicants in similar OAs, albeit on an 'in personam' basis.
Source reference: p.2, para.4.1Despite the issue having attained finality and benefits being extended to similarly placed officers, the respondents rejected the applicant's representation via order dated 10.07.2025 (Annexure A/3).
Source reference: p.3, para.4.2Issues
Whether the applicant, a Superintendent of Central GST & Customs, is entitled to the benefit of an enhanced pay scale with effect from 01.01.1996, despite the respondents' rejection of his representation?
Source reference: p.2, para.3; p.3, para.4.2Law Applied
The court applied the principle of equal treatment for similarly situated government employees, emphasizing that benefits extended through judicial pronouncements to some should be extended to others in identical circumstances.
Source reference: p.4, para.11It specifically referred to the Hon’ble Apex Court's upholding of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in Union of India Vs. R Siva Shankara Sastry (SLP No. 59005/2024 dated 28.02.2025), which affirmed the grant of enhanced pay scale from 01.01.1996.
Source reference: p.3, para.8The Tribunal also acknowledged its own previous order in OA No. 411/2025 dated 16.12.2025, which partly allowed similar claims and directed the extension of notional benefits from 01.01.1996.
Source reference: p.3, para.8Reasoning
The Tribunal noted that the applicant's case was identical to those of other Inspectors/Superintendents whose claims for an enhanced pay scale from 01.01.1996, rather than 21.04.2004, had already been accepted.
Source reference: p.2, para.4; p.4, para.10It highlighted that the issue had attained finality, with the Hon'ble Apex Court upholding the grant of this benefit in Union of India Vs. R Siva Shankara Sastry.
Source reference: p.3, para.8The respondents themselves, in compliance with directions from this Tribunal and coordinate benches, had granted the benefit to other applicants, albeit stating it was 'in personam'.
Source reference: p.2, para.4.1; p.3, para.9The Tribunal concluded that denying the same benefit to the present applicant, a similarly placed officer, violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and contradicted prior judgments.
Source reference: p.3, para.4.2Therefore, the principle of equal treatment dictated that the applicant should also receive the enhanced pay scale from 01.01.1996.
Source reference: p.4, para.11Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the OA at the admission stage.
It directed the respondents to extend the benefit of the enhanced pay scale to the applicant on a notional basis with consequential benefits, with effect from 01.01.1996.
Source reference: p.4, para.11(i)This direction was to be implemented expeditiously, preferably within 60 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order, and the applicant informed of the decision.
Source reference: p.4, para.11(ii)The court held that the rejection order dated 10.07.2025 (Annexure A/3) should not influence this decision.
Source reference: p.4, para.11(i)Original Court PDF
Mukesh Kumar Khandelwal v. Union of India [OA No. 96/2026, MA No. 107/2026]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in