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

The applicants, serving as Superintendents of Customs and having earlier served as Inspectors of Central Excise, sought revision of the pay scales applicable to the posts of Inspector and Superintendent with effect from 1 January 1996.

Pursuant to the Fifth Central Pay Commission, Inspectors were initially placed in the scale of ₹5,500–9,000 and Superintendents in ₹6,500–10,500.

By Office Memorandum dated 21 April 2004, the scales were revised to ₹6,500–10,500 for Inspectors and ₹7,500–12,000 for Superintendents, but the revision was implemented prospectively from 21 April 2004 rather than from 1 January 1996.

The applicants relied upon decisions of the Hyderabad and Jaipur Benches of the Tribunal, which directed notional fixation from 1 January 1996 and consequential monetary benefits in accordance with the applicable directions.

Those decisions were affirmed by the respective High Courts and subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court.

The applicants also relied on earlier orders of the Chennai Bench in O.A. Nos. 274/2025, 795/2025 and 811/2025, which had granted similar relief and had been implemented by the Department.

Their representations dated 19 December 2025 remained pending.

Whether the applicants were entitled to notional fixation of pay in the revised scales with effect from 1 January 1996 under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997?

Whether the consequential monetary and pensionary benefits were payable from 1 January 1996 or only from 21 April 2004, the date of the Office Memorandum revising the pay scales?

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the applicants’ pending representations and extend to them the benefit granted in similarly situated cases?

The Tribunal applied the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997, under which the revised pay fixation was required to be given effect from 1 January 1996.

It relied on the principle established in the Hyderabad Bench’s decision in O.A. No. 1089/2019, affirmed by the Telangana High Court and the Supreme Court, that employees similarly situated to those who had received the benefit of the revised scales were entitled to notional pay fixation from 1 January 1996, while actual monetary benefits would follow from 21 April 2004.

The Tribunal also followed the Jaipur Bench decision in O.A. No. 154/2015, upheld by the Rajasthan High Court and the Supreme Court, recognising that denial of the revised pay scales from 1 January 1996 resulted in discriminatory treatment among similarly situated employees.

Consistent and implemented decisions of the Chennai Bench were also treated as supporting the grant of equivalent relief.

The Tribunal found that the legal issue was no longer res integra because the Hyderabad Bench had already directed notional fixation from 1 January 1996 and actual monetary benefits from 21 April 2004, and that decision had attained finality after affirmation by the High Court and Supreme Court.

The applicants belonged to the same class of Inspectors and Superintendents who were affected by the delayed implementation of the revised scales.

In view of the binding and persuasive precedents, as well as the Chennai Bench’s implementation of identical relief in earlier cases, the Tribunal held that the applicants’ claims could not be denied merely because the revised scales had initially been implemented prospectively.

The respondents were therefore required to refix the applicants’ pay notionally from 1 January 1996, grant actual monetary benefits from 21 April 2004, and extend consequential pensionary benefits.

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

The entire exercise was ordered to be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.