Identically situated Inspectors and Superintendents must receive upgraded pay scales notionally from 1 January 1996.

The applicant, Hamir Singh, challenged the respondents’ decision to grant the upgraded/revised pay scale for Inspectors/Superintendents under the Department of Revenue from 21 April 2004 instead of 1 January 1996.

He sought retrospective notional fixation from 1 January 1996, consequential benefits, arrears, interest, and refixation of pay/pension under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The applicant relied on the decision of the CAT Hyderabad Bench in O.A. No. 1089/2019 and connected matters, which directed grant of the enhanced pay scale notionally from 1 January 1996.

The Union of India’s challenge to that decision before the Telangana High Court was dismissed in W.P. No. 10490/2024.

The Supreme Court dismissed the Union’s SLP (Civil) Diary No. 59005/2024 on 28 February 2025.

The applicant also relied on the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order declining to interfere with a similar direction issued by the CAT Jabalpur Bench.

Whether the applicant was entitled to the upgraded/revised pay scale for Inspectors/Superintendents with effect from 1 January 1996 instead of 21 April 2004, on the basis of the decisions concerning similarly situated employees under the Department of Revenue?

Whether the facts and controversy in the applicant’s case were identical to those considered by the CAT Hyderabad Bench, the Telangana High Court, and the Supreme Court in the cited proceedings, so as to warrant similar relief?

Whether the respondents should be directed to grant the applicant the consequential benefits, including notional pay fixation and arrears, subject to verification of the identity of the cases?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which permits an aggrieved government servant to approach the Tribunal for adjudication of service-related grievances.

It applied the principle that similarly situated employees should receive equivalent service and pay benefits where the governing controversy has already been conclusively determined by competent judicial forums.

The Tribunal relied on the CAT Hyderabad Bench’s decision directing enhanced pay from 1 January 1996, the Telangana High Court’s decision in Union of India v. R. Siva Shankara Sastry, W.P. No. 10490/2024, which treated the CBDT anomaly-resolution process as applicable to the common Department of Revenue context, and the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the Union’s SLP on 28 February 2025.

It also considered the similar approach adopted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Union of India v. Sarad Kumar Tripathi.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant claimed the same benefit—upgraded pay with effect from 1 January 1996—as had been granted or directed in the earlier proceedings concerning Inspectors/Superintendents under the Department of Revenue.

The cited decisions established a persuasive and substantially binding basis for extending the benefit where the employee’s post, department, pay anomaly, and factual circumstances were identical.

However, instead of independently granting the relief immediately, the Tribunal directed the respondents first to verify whether the applicant’s case was factually and legally identical to the cases decided by the CAT Hyderabad Bench and the Telangana High Court, whose judgment had survived challenge before the Supreme Court.

Thus, the Tribunal adopted a parity-based approach while preserving a limited verification by the administrative authorities.

The respondents were directed to verify whether the applicant’s case involved the same facts and controversy as the cases decided by the CAT Hyderabad Bench and the Telangana High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court.

If the respondents found the cases identical, they were required to grant the applicant relief on similar terms within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The Tribunal did not itself finally quantify or direct unconditional payment of arrears; the grant of relief was made subject to the respondents’ verification.

No order was made as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.