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

The applicant, aggrieved by the respondents’ decision to grant the upgraded/revised pay scale from 21 April 2004 instead of 1 January 1996, filed the Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

She sought revision of the pay scales applicable to Inspectors and Superintendents under the Department of Revenue, together with consequential arrears, pay/pension fixation and other benefits from 1 January 1996.

The applicant relied upon the order of the CAT, Hyderabad Bench in O.A. No. 1089/2019 and connected matters, the Telangana High Court’s judgment in W.P. No. 10490/2024, and the dismissal of the Union of India’s SLP by the Supreme Court on 28 February 2025.

The respondents accepted notice and opposed the claim through their counsel.

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 relied upon by her?

Whether the respondents should 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, as upheld by the Supreme Court?

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which provides the jurisdictional basis for seeking redress against service-related grievances before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

It relied upon the CAT, Hyderabad Bench’s order dated 9 January 2024 in O.A. No. 1089/2019 and connected matters, concerning grant of the enhanced pay scale notionally from 1 January 1996.

It further relied on the Telangana High Court’s judgment dated 9 August 2024 in W.P. No. 10490/2024, which held that, following the constitution and recommendations of the Special Anomaly Committee for CBDT employees and the common administrative control of CBDT and CBIC under the Department of Revenue, a separate Anomaly Committee for CBIC was unnecessary.

The Supreme Court’s dismissal of SLP (C) Diary No. 59005/2024 on 28 February 2025 and the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order dated 18 March 2025 were treated as supporting the implementation of the revised pay scale from 1 January 1996 in comparable cases.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s claim raised the same pay-fixation controversy considered in the Hyderabad and Telangana proceedings—namely, whether the upgraded pay scale applicable to Inspectors/Superintendents under the Department of Revenue should operate from 1 January 1996 rather than 21 April 2004.

However, instead of independently granting the relief, it directed the official respondents to verify whether the applicant’s factual and legal circumstances were identical to those in the relied-upon decisions.

If the respondents found the cases to be identical, the binding effect and persuasive significance of the cited decisions required that the applicant be granted relief on similar terms within the prescribed period.

The respondents were directed to examine whether the applicant’s case was identical to the cases decided by the CAT, Hyderabad Bench and the Telangana High Court, whose judgment had been upheld by the Supreme Court through dismissal of the SLP.

If so, the respondents were required to extend the corresponding pay-scale benefit to the applicant within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.