Inspectors and Superintendents are entitled to revised pay notionally from 1 January 1996, with monetary benefits from 21 April 2004.

The applicant joined the department as a Preventive Officer and was subsequently promoted as Superintendent of Customs (Preventive).

Prior to 1 January 1996, the pay scale for Inspectors/Preventive Officers/Examiners was ₹1,640–2,900, while the promotional scale for Superintendents/Appraisers was ₹2,000–3,500.

Following the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission, the revised scales of ₹6,500–10,500 for Inspectors/Preventive Officers/Examiners and ₹7,500–12,000 for Superintendents/Appraisers were granted by the respondents with effect from 21 April 2004, rather than 1 January 1996.

The applicant challenged the denial of the revised scales from 1 January 1996 and relied upon decisions of the Hyderabad and Jaipur Benches of the Tribunal, which had been affirmed by the respective High Courts and the Supreme Court.

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

Whether the applicant was entitled to refixation of pay in the revised scales for the posts of Inspector and Superintendent with effect from 1 January 1996, on a notional basis.

Whether the applicant was entitled to consequential monetary benefits from 1 January 1996, or only from 21 April 2004 in accordance with the Anomaly Committee’s recommendations and the consequential Office Memorandum.

Whether the applicant was entitled to consequential pensionary and other service benefits arising from such pay refixation.

The Tribunal applied the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997, under which the revised pay scales were to be determined with effect from 1 January 1996.

It followed the binding and persuasive precedent of the Hyderabad Bench in OA No. 1089/2019, which directed grant of the enhanced pay on a notional basis from 1 January 1996 and actual monetary benefits from 21 April 2004; that decision had been affirmed by the Telangana High Court and the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal also relied on the Jaipur Bench’s decision, upheld by the Rajasthan High Court and the Supreme Court, recognising that denial of the revised scales from 1 January 1996 resulted in discrimination against similarly situated employees.

The principle applied was that similarly situated officers must receive equal treatment in the implementation of Fifth Central Pay Commission benefits, while the distinction between notional fixation and actual monetary payment could be maintained.

The Tribunal found that the controversy was no longer res integra because the same issue had been conclusively addressed in the Hyderabad and Jaipur decisions, which had attained finality through affirmation by the Supreme Court.

Applying those precedents and the 1997 Revised Pay Rules, it held that the applicant’s pay had to be refixed from 1 January 1996 in the revised scales applicable to the grades of Inspector and Superintendent.

However, consistent with the governing decisions and the Anomaly Committee’s determination, the financial consequences were to operate only from 21 April 2004.

The applicant was therefore entitled to notional benefits from 1 January 1996 and actual monetary and consequential pensionary benefits from 21 April 2004.

The respondents were directed to refix the applicant’s pay under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997, with effect from 1 January 1996, granting notional benefits in the grades of Inspector and Superintendent from that date and actual monetary benefits from 21 April 2004.

Consequential benefits, including pensionary benefits, were also directed to be granted.

The exercise was required to be completed within two months from receipt of the Tribunal’s order.

The OA was accordingly disposed of at the admission stage.