Enhanced pay scales for Inspectors and Superintendents must be granted notionally effective from 01.01.1996 to maintain parity across Revenue Departments.

The applicant, a senior citizen and former employee under the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC), approached the Tribunal seeking the benefit of upgraded pay scales for the posts of Inspector and Superintendent with effect from 01.01.1996.

The respondents had granted the said benefit from 21.04.2004 instead of the earlier date prescribed by preceding judicial interventions.

The applicant sought retrospective pay fixation, arrears, and consequential pensionary benefits, citing that coordinate benches and various High Courts had already settled the entitlement for similarly situated employees within the Department of Revenue.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of upgraded/enhanced pay scales for the posts of Inspector and Superintendent with effect from 01.01.1996 on a notional basis, instead of from 21.04.2004.

2. Whether the Department of Revenue is required to treat employees of the CBIC at par with those of the CBDT regarding pay scale anomalies settled by a Special Anomaly Committee.

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles of parity and judicial consistency established in CAT Hyderabad Bench vs. Union of India (OA No. 1089/2019), which directed the grant of enhanced pay scales from 01.01.1996.

The High Court of Telangana’s ruling in Writ Petition No. 10490 of 2024, which held that since the Department of Revenue is common to both CBDT and CBIC, benefits granted to one must extend to the other without a separate Anomaly Committee.

The dismissal of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. R. Siva Shankara Sastry & Ors. (Diary No. 59005/2024), which attained finality on the issue.

The Tribunal examined the applicant’s claim through the lens of established precedents under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Bench observed that the legal dispute regarding the effective date of the upgraded pay scale (01.01.1996 vs. 21.04.2004) for Inspectors and Superintendents had undergone exhaustive litigation.

The court reasoned that the recommendation of the Special Anomaly Committee for CBDT employees, subsequently implemented by the government, created a binding precedent for CBIC employees due to their shared administrative parentage under the Department of Revenue.

Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court had already declined to interfere with High Court orders upholding the 01.01.1996 date, the Tribunal found that the controversy reached a legal quietus. Consequently, the only remaining requirement was a factual verification of identity between the applicant’s case and the cited precedents.

Holding that if the cases are found to be identical, the respondents must grant the applicant the revised pay scale benefits with effect from 01.01.1996 on a notional basis, along with consequential arrears, within a period of three months from the receipt of the order. No order was passed as to costs.