Government Must Grant Revised Pay Scales Notionally From Implementation Date Ensuring Parity for Similarly Situated Employees

The 33 applicants are retired Inspectors and Superintendents of the Central Excise/Customs Department.

Following the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC), the government upgraded the pay scales for Inspectors (Rs. 6500-10500) and Superintendents (Rs. 7500-12000) vide OMs dated 21.04.2004 and 11.05.2004, but made them effective only from 21.04.2004.

Similar employees in the Income Tax Department (CBDT) and other Excise zones had successfully litigated to have these scales applied notionally from 01.01.1996 (the start of the 5th CPC).

The applicants’ representation for similar parity was rejected via a speaking order dated 12.08.2025.

Consequently, they approached the Tribunal seeking a quashing of the effective date and a direction for notional fixation from 01.01.1996.

1. Whether the revised pay scales should be implemented notionally from 01.01.1996 instead of 21.04.2004 to maintain parity with similarly situated employees.

2. Whether the applicants are barred by the doctrine of delay and laches as "fence-sitters" under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

3. Whether judicial precedents granting this relief in other Benches operate in rem or in personam.

Principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" and non-discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution, establishing that similarly situated employees must be treated equally.

Mandate that benefits granted by courts to one set of employees should be extended to others similarly placed as established in State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha.

Pay fixation is a "recurring cause of action" as per Union of India v. Tarsem Singh.

A model employer should extend benefits based on settled law without forcing every employee to litigate.

Doctrine of in rem judgments vs. in personam as discussed in Lt. Col Suprita Chandel v. Union of India.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' plea of limitation, noting that a Special Anomaly Committee (following a Kolkata High Court direction) only finalized its recommendations to grant notional fixation from 1996 in September 2023; thus, the cause of action was refreshed.

The court reasoned that since the CBDT and CBIC both function under the Department of Revenue, it was discriminatory to grant retrospective benefits to one board and deny them to the other.

Applying the Hyderabad Bench precedent (affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) Diary No. 59005/2024), the Tribunal concluded that since the 5th CPC recommendations came into force on 01.01.1996, any subsequent "rectification" of pay anomalies must relate back to that date to ensure constitutional validity.

The Tribunal emphasized that a "model employer" should not treat judicial successes as in personam specifically to exclude those who did not join the original litigation.

The respondents were directed to refix the applicants' pay notionally from 01.01.1996 and pay actual monetary arrears from 21.04.2004, including the revision of all pensionary benefits within two months.

No costs were awarded.