Grant of upgraded pay scales to Inspectors and Superintendents must take effect from 01.01.1996 instead of 21.04.2004.

The applicant, an Inspector/Superintendent under the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC), filed an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

He challenged the respondents' decision to grant him upgraded/enhanced pay scales effective from 21.04.2004 instead of 01.01.1996.

The applicant claimed parity with employees of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), who were granted retrospective benefits from 01.01.1996 following recommendations of a Special Anomaly Committee.

Similar reliefs had already been upheld by the CAT Hyderabad Bench, the Telangana High Court, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in related matters.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of the revised/upgraded pay scale specifically from 01.01.1996 on a notional basis instead of 21.04.2004.

2. Whether the benefits granted to employees in the CBDT regarding pay fixation must be extended to employees of the CBIC, given both fall under the Department of Revenue.

The court applied the principle of parity in pay fixation within the same Department of Revenue, relying on the precedent set by the CAT Hyderabad Bench in OA No. 1089/2019.

The court adhered to the ruling of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in Union of India v. Siva Shankara Sastry (WP No. 10490 of 2024), which held that since the Department of Revenue is common to both CBDT and CBIC, separate Anomaly Committees are unnecessary and benefits must be uniform.

The court further noted the exhaustion of judicial remedies following the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. R. Siva Shankara Sastry (Diary No. 59005/2024).

The Tribunal examined the judicial history of the dispute, noting that the controversy regarding the 01.01.1996 commencement date for enhanced pay scales for Inspectors and Superintendents had been conclusively settled.

The court reasoned that since the Hon’ble Supreme Court had dismissed the Union’s SLP against the Telangana High Court’s judgment, the legal entitlement to the 1996 date was no longer res integra.

The Tribunal emphasized that if the facts and the nature of the post (Inspector/Superintendent) in the present case are identical to the cited precedents, the respondents are legally bound to provide equal treatment to the applicant to avoid discrimination within the same department.

If found identical, the respondents are directed to grant the applicant the upgraded pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 on a notional basis with consequential arrears within three months.

No order as to costs was made.