Inspectors and Superintendents are entitled to revised pay notionally from 1.1.1996, with monetary benefits from 21.4.2004.

The applicants were serving or retired officers who had held the posts of Inspector of Central Excise and Superintendent of Central Excise.

Before 1 January 1996, Inspectors/Preventive Officers/Examiners were placed in the pay scale of ₹1,640–2,900, while Superintendents/Appraisers were placed in the scale of ₹2,000–3,500.

Following the Fifth Central Pay Commission, the corresponding revised scales were ₹6,500–10,500 and ₹7,500–12,000.

However, implementation of the revised scales was granted from 21 April 2004 rather than 1 January 1996.

The applicants sought refixation from 1 January 1996, together with arrears, pensionary and other consequential benefits.

The applicants relied upon decisions of the Hyderabad and Jaipur Benches of the Tribunal, which had directed notional fixation from 1 January 1996 and monetary benefits from 21 April 2004; those decisions had been affirmed by the respective High Courts and the Supreme Court.

They also relied on earlier orders of the Chennai Bench in OAs Nos. 274/2025, 795/2025 and 811/2025, which had been implemented by the Department.

Since the facts, subject matter and reliefs were identical, the four OAs were heard and decided by a common order.

Whether the applicants were entitled to refixation of pay in the revised scales of ₹6,500–10,500 for Inspectors and ₹7,500–12,000 for Superintendents with effect from 1 January 1996.

Whether the applicants were entitled to consequential monetary and pensionary benefits from 1 January 1996, or whether actual financial benefits were payable only from 21 April 2004 pursuant to the recommendations of the Anomaly Committee and the consequential Office Memorandum.

Whether the impugned orders denying or restricting the applicants’ pay benefits were liable to be set aside in view of binding or followed precedents granting similar relief to similarly situated employees.

The Tribunal applied the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997, under which pay was required to be revised pursuant to the Fifth Central Pay Commission.

It applied the principle that similarly situated employees should not be discriminated against in the grant of revised pay benefits, particularly where the entitlement had already been recognised in decisions concerning the same posts and pay anomaly.

The Tribunal relied on the Hyderabad Bench’s decision in OA No. 1089/2019, affirmed by the Telangana High Court and the Supreme Court, which established that the enhanced pay scales were to be granted on a notional basis from 1 January 1996 and with actual monetary benefits from 21 April 2004.

It also relied on the Jaipur Bench’s decision, affirmed by the Rajasthan High Court and the Supreme Court, recognising the employees’ entitlement to revised pay from 1 January 1996 to remove discriminatory treatment under the Fifth Central Pay Commission.

The Tribunal found that the central issue was already settled by decisions concerning the same pay-scale disparity and the same category of Central Excise employees.

Since the Hyderabad Bench’s order had been affirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court, and similar orders of the Chennai Bench had already been implemented by the Department, the respondents could not validly deny equivalent treatment to the present applicants.

Applying the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 and the principle of parity, the Tribunal distinguished between the date of notional entitlement and the date of actual financial payment: pay was required to be notionally refixed from 1 January 1996, while actual monetary benefits were payable from 21 April 2004 in accordance with the Anomaly Committee’s decision and the governing Office Memorandum.

The respondents were directed to refix the applicants’ pay under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997, in the grades of Inspector and Superintendent, with effect from 1 January 1996 on a notional basis, and to grant actual monetary benefits from 21 April 2004, including consequential pensionary benefits.

The exercise was directed to be completed within two months from receipt of the order.

The OAs were accordingly disposed of at the admission stage.