Identical Benefits Must be Extended to Similarly Situated Employees Regardless of Association Membership or Litigation Status.

The 140 applicants, comprising serving and retired Income Tax Department officials (Inspectors, ITOs, and ACITs), filed an Original Application (O.A.) challenging the respondents' decision to restrict the benefits of an Office Memorandum (OM) dated 27.06.2025.

This OM granted notional pay fixation effective from 01.01.1996, with actual monetary benefits from 21.04.2004, but limited its application only to members of the Income Tax Gazetted Officers' Association (ITGOA).

The applicants, some of whom were not members of the specific association, sought parity with their colleagues who had already received these benefits.

Their representations for equal treatment were rejected by the respondents via communication dated 29.10.2025.

1. Whether the respondents were legally justified in restricting the benefit of notional pay fixation under the OM dated 27.06.2025 exclusively to members of a specific service association

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to the same benefits as granted to similarly situated employees in previous judicial pronouncements by the Tribunal

The Court applied the principle of "Equitable Treatment of Similarly Situated Employees," rooted in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which mandates that equal treatment must be afforded to persons placed in identical circumstances.

The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court precedents of State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha (2006) 2 SCC 747 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347, which established that in service jurisprudence, it is incumbent upon the State to treat similarly situated persons alike, and the mere fact that an individual did not approach the court or belong to a specific union is not a valid ground for discrimination.

The Tribunal noted that the issue was squarely covered by its earlier decisions in O.A. No. 2233/2025 and O.A. No. 4516/2025.

The court reasoned that no distinction can be drawn between two sets of employees based solely on membership in an association or union.

It observed that the respondents had already agreed to grant notional pay fixation from 1996 and actual benefits from 2004 to association members, and denying the same to the applicants—who are identically placed—would be arbitrary and discriminatory.

Since the respondents' counsel conceded that the facts and legal issues were identical to those in the cited precedents, the Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the established path of granting parity.

It directed the respondents to extend the benefits of the OM dated 27.06.2025 to all 140 applicants, granting notional pay fixation from 01.01.1996 and actual monetary benefits from 21.04.2004.

The respondents were ordered to comply with these directions, including the award of all consequential benefits, within six weeks from the receipt of the order.

No order as to costs was made.