Enhanced pay scales apply retrospectively on a notional basis to all similarly situated employees to ensure parity.

The applicant, a retired Superintendent of GST Central Excise, sought the retrospective benefit of revised pay scales under the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC)

Following the 5th CPC, the Union Government initially fixed the pay scales for Inspectors and Superintendents effective 01.01.1996, but later recognized anomalies and upgraded these scales via an Office Memorandum (OM) dated 21.04.2004

However, this upgrade was implemented prospectively from the date of the OM rather than from 01.01.1996

The applicant filed a representation in 2023 seeking retrospective benefits, which remained unanswered

The Respondents opposed the OA, arguing that the claim was barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and that the applicant was a "fence-sitter" seeking to benefit from judgments in cases where he was not a party

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the notional fixation of upgraded pay scales with effect from 01.01.1996 and actual monetary benefits from 21.04.2004 on par with similarly situated employees

2. Whether the claim is barred by the law of limitation and the doctrine of laches

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, mandating that similarly situated persons must be treated alike

It relied on the precedent in State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, which postulates that benefits granted to one set of employees should be extended to others similarly placed without requiring them to litigate

The Tribunal further applied the doctrine that pay fixation constitutes a "recurring cause of action," as established in K.C. Sharma v. Union of India and affirmed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 15760/2023, thereby overrunning the objection of limitation

It also noted that once a "Special Anomaly Committee" recommendation is accepted for one board (CBDT) under the Department of Revenue, it must apply to the other (CBIC)

The Tribunal reasoned that the issue of retrospective pay fixation for Inspectors and Superintendents under the 5th CPC is no longer res integra, having been settled by the Hyderabad Bench (OA 1089/2019), and affirmed by both the Telangana High Court and the Supreme Court

The court observed that the Respondents (CBIC) had already implemented these orders for over 1,500 similarly situated employees across various Benches

Consequently, the Tribunal held that these judicial pronouncements were judgments in rem rather than in personam

It rejected the "fence-sitter" argument, stating that a model employer should implement settled law for all eligible employees without forcing individual litigation

The Tribunal concluded that since the anomaly originated on 01.01.1996, the fixation must be notionally applied from that date to ensure parity within the Department of Revenue

The holding specifies that the applicant is entitled to the upgraded pay scales on a notional basis from 01.01.1996 and on an actual monetary basis from 21.04.2004, including all consequential arrears and revised pensionary benefits

The Respondents were ordered to complete this exercise within two months