Entitlement to Enhanced Pay Scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 for Revenue Officials on Par with Similarly Situated Employees

The five applicants were appointed as Preventive Officers (Inspectors) in the Customs/Central Excise Department after January 1, 1996, and subsequently promoted to Superintendent and Assistant Commissioner

Following the Vth Central Pay Commission (CPC), parity in pay scales between Inspectors of CBI/IB and those of Central Excise & Customs was disrupted

The applicants challenged the Government's decision to grant upgraded pay scales (Rs. 6,500–10,500) effective only from April 21, 2004, rather than notionally from January 1, 1996

The respondents contended that the 2004 date was a policy decision involving financial implications and that prior court orders had been implemented on an in personam basis only

1. Whether the action of the respondents in granting the benefit of replacement pay scales effective from 21.04.2004, instead of notionally from 01.01.1996, was arbitrary and discriminatory

2. Whether the judicial precedents granting notional pay fixation from 01.01.1996 to similarly situated employees should be treated as judgments in rem rather than in personam

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle of judicial discipline as established in S.L. Rooplal v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, which mandates that precedents from coordinate benches must be followed

Relying on Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise and Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India, which establish that once a court declares the law in favor of a set of employees, the government should extend that benefit to all similarly situated persons to avoid needless litigation

The Tribunal also noted the V CPC recommendations (para 126.5) regarding the extension of judicial decisions in matters of a general nature to all similarly placed employees

The Tribunal observed that the issue of granting the pay scale of Rs. 6,500–10,500 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 is no longer res integra, having been settled by the CAT Hyderabad Bench in O.A. No. 21/1089/2019, which was subsequently upheld by the Telangana High Court and the Supreme Court

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' argument that such benefits were limited to the litigants in those specific cases (in personam), holding instead that when a common issue of a general nature is decided, the judgment is in rem

The Tribunal reasoned that denying the same benefit to the applicants—who are similarly situated Inspectors/Superintendents—would constitute illegal discrimination and violate service jurisprudence

It directed the respondents to grant the applicants the enhanced pay scale for Inspectors/Superintendents notionally from 01.01.1996 to 21.04.2004. The court held that there would be no financial benefit (actual arrears) for the period prior to 2004, as the prayer was for notional fixation only. The order must be implemented within three months