Identically situated Inspectors and Superintendents qualify for upgraded pay scales notionally from 1 January 1996.

The applicant, an employee under the Department of Revenue, challenged the grant of an upgraded/revised pay scale from 21 April 2004 instead of 1 January 1996.

He filed the Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking notional and actual revision of pay for the posts of Inspector/Superintendent, together with consequential benefits, arrears, interest, and refixation of pay and pension.

The applicant relied upon the order of the CAT, Hyderabad Bench in O.A. No. 1089/2019 and connected matters dated 9 January 2024, which directed grant of the enhanced pay scale to Superintendents notionally from 1 January 1996.

The Union of India’s challenge to that decision before the Telangana High Court was dismissed on 9 August 2024.

The applicant further relied upon the Supreme Court’s dismissal of SLP (Civil) Diary No. 59005/2024 on 28 February 2025 and an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 177/2025.

The respondents appeared through counsel and waived service of notice.

1. Whether the applicant’s claim for grant of the upgraded/revised pay scale with effect from 1 January 1996, instead of 21 April 2004, was identical to the controversy decided in the Hyderabad Bench and Telangana High Court proceedings.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to extend the same relief to the applicant if such identity of facts and controversy was established.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which an aggrieved government employee may approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for adjudication of service-related grievances.

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

It also considered the Telangana High Court’s decision in Union of India v. R. Siva Shankara Sastry, W.P. No. 10490/2024, dated 9 August 2024, and the Supreme Court’s dismissal of SLP (Civil) Diary No. 59005/2024 dated 28 February 2025.

The governing principle applied was that similarly situated employees should receive similar treatment where their claims arise from the same pay-fixation controversy and the material facts are identical.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant sought the same benefit—revision of the pay scale from 1 January 1996 rather than 21 April 2004—as had been considered in the Hyderabad proceedings.

It also took into account that the Telangana High Court had rejected the Union’s challenge after considering the constitution and recommendation of a Special Anomaly Committee concerning the retrospective implementation of the revised pay scale, and that the Supreme Court had dismissed the Union’s subsequent SLP.

However, instead of granting the benefit automatically, the Tribunal directed the respondents first to verify whether the applicant’s facts and controversy were identical to those in the cited cases.

If that verification established identity, the respondents were required to extend the corresponding relief within three months of receiving the certified copy of the order.

The respondents were directed to examine whether the applicant’s case was identical to the cases decided by the CAT, Hyderabad Bench, the Telangana High Court, and considered by the Supreme Court.

If so, the respondents were directed to grant the applicant relief on similar terms within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The Tribunal therefore issued a conditional direction for consideration and grant of the revised pay-scale benefit, rather than making an unconditional order of payment.

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