Enhanced Pay Scale: Identical Treatment required for similarly placed officers.

The applicant, Handore Nilesh Shankerrao, a retired Superintendent of Central GST & Central Excise, filed the present Original Application (OA) challenging the denial of an upgraded pay scale with effect from January 1, 1996.

The applicant's counsel, Ms. Dhruti J Shukla, submitted that this Tribunal had previously considered identical claims from Inspectors/Superintendents of Central GST & Central Excise for an enhanced pay scale effective from January 1, 1996, instead of April 21, 2004, and these claims were accepted by the respondents based on judgments from the Hon'ble Apex Court, various High Courts, and other coordinate Benches of this Tribunal.

Orders have been issued in similar cases directing the respondents to extend this benefit, including an order dated November 24, 2025, from the Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, though it mentioned implementing the court order on an 'in personam' basis.

The applicant, being similarly placed, argued for the same benefit.

Despite the issue having attained finality and benefits extended to similarly placed officers, the respondents rejected the applicant's representation via an order dated January 8, 2026 (Annexure A/3).

MA No. 106/2026, seeking condonation of delay, was allowed.

1. Whether the applicant, a retired Superintendent of Central GST & Central Excise, is entitled to the benefit of an upgraded pay scale with effect from January 1, 1996, similar to other officers whose claims have been upheld by various courts and tribunals.

2. Whether the rejection of the applicant's representation dated January 8, 2026, is contrary to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and established legal precedents.

The court primarily applied the principle of equal treatment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that similarly situated government employees should receive similar benefits.

It further relied on the principles established in judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court (specifically, its upholding of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana's judgment in Union of India Vs. R Siva Shankara Sastry (SLP No. 59005/2024, dated February 28, 2025), which affirmed the judgment in Writ Petition No. 10490 of 2024, dated August 9, 2024) and various coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, which directed the grant of an enhanced pay scale to Inspectors/Superintendents with effect from January 1, 1996.

The tribunal also noted the respondent's compliance with similar directions in other cases.

The Tribunal recognized that the issue of granting an enhanced pay scale effective January 1, 1996, to Inspectors/Superintendents in Central GST & Central Excise had attained finality, with benefits extended to many similarly placed officers based on successive court orders.

Specifically, the Tribunal cited its own order in OA No. 411/2025, dated December 16, 2025, which had partly allowed a similar grievance by directing respondents to extend the benefit of an enhanced pay scale notionally from January 1, 1996.

This earlier order was based on the affirmation by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana's decision in the context of R Siva Shankara Sastry.

The Tribunal stressed that the respondents had themselves complied with similar directions by various coordinate Benches, including through orders dated December 17, 2025, and November 24, 2025.

Despite this, the respondents rejected the applicant's representation, which the Tribunal found to be in violation of Articles 14 and 16, as equal treatment must be afforded to all government employees.

The OA was disposed of at the admission stage.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to extend the benefit of an enhanced pay scale to the applicant on a notional basis with consequential benefits, effective January 1, 1996, without being influenced by the rejection order dated January 8, 2026 (Annexure A/3).

This direction was to be implemented expeditiously, preferably within 60 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order, and the decision communicated to the applicant forthwith.