Judgments rectifying pay scale anomalies operate in rem and must be extended to all similarly situated employees.

The applicant joined the Department of Revenue as an Inspector in 1982 and retired as an Assistant Commissioner on 31.07.2020

Following the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC), the Union Government upgraded the pay scales for Inspectors and Superintendents via Office Memorandum (OM) dated 21.04.2004, but made the implementation prospective from the date of the OM rather than the standard 5th CPC commencement date of 01.01.1996

The applicant filed a representation on 23.06.2025 seeking retrospective pay fixation from 01.01.1996, which was rejected by the respondents via a speaking order dated 12.08.2025

The applicant challenged this rejection, citing various High Court and Supreme Court decisions that had granted similar benefits to other employees in the same department

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of revised pay scales under the 5th CPC with effect from 01.01.1996 on a notional or actual basis

2. Whether the Original Application is barred by limitation and laches under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

3. Whether the previous judicial pronouncements granting retrospective benefits to similarly situated employees operate in rem or were confined in personam to the specific litigants

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle of equality and non-discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, asserting that similarly situated employees must be treated uniformly

It relied on the doctrine established in State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, which stipulates that service jurisprudence requires benefits granted to one set of employees by a court to be extended to all others similarly placed

Regarding limitation, the Tribunal followed the principle that pay fixation constitutes a recurring cause of action, as supported by the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 15760/2023

It further adhered to the precedent set by the Telangana High Court in W.P. No. 10490/2024 (affirmed by the Supreme Court), which held that once a Special Anomaly Committee recommendation is implemented for one board (CBDT), it must apply to the other (CBIC) under the same Department of Revenue

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' contention regarding "fence-sitters" and limitation, noting that the recommendations of the Special Anomaly Committee—which arose from protracted litigation in the Kolkata High Court—were only accepted in late 2023, thus providing a fresh basis for the claim

The court reasoned that since both CBDT and CBIC function under the Department of Revenue, maintaining different effective dates for pay scales between the two boards or between different groups of employees was arbitrary and violated Article 14

The Tribunal observed that the department had already implemented similar orders for over 1,500 employees across various benches, rendering the previous judgments in rem rather than in personam

Consequently, the Tribunal found no justification for the respondents to treat the applicant differently, as the core issue of pay parity and its effective date had already attained legal finality

It held that the applicant is entitled to the revised pay scales effective from 01.01.1996

The respondents were directed to refix the applicant's pay in the grades of Inspector and Superintendent on a notional basis from 01.01.1996 and on an actual monetary basis from 21.04.2004, including all consequential pensionary benefits and arrears

The respondents must complete this exercise within two months from the date of receipt of the order

No costs were awarded