Judgments rectifying pay scales operate in rem and apply notionally to all similarly situated employees.

The applicant, a retired Inspector of Customs, joined the service in 1994 and retired in 2011

Following the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC), the pay scale for Inspectors was upgraded to Rs. 6500–10500

the respondents made this revised scale effective from 21.04.2004 instead of 01.01.1996, the implementation date of the 5th CPC

Similar benefits were granted retrospectively to employees in the Income Tax Department (CBDT) and other Central Excise zones (CBIC) following various Tribunal and High Court orders

The applicant sought a direction to quash the orders limiting the effective date to 2004 and requested notional pay fixation from 01.01.1996 with actual arrears

The respondents contested the application on the grounds of limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and argued that the applicant was a "fence-sitter" who approached the court belatedly

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of notional pay fixation with effect from 01.01.1996 and consequential monetary benefits from 21.04.2004

2. Whether the application is barred by limitation and laches, and whether the applicant is precluded from relief as a "fence-sitter"

3. Whether the judicial precedents granting this relief in other Benches operate as judgments in rem or in personam

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle of parity under Article 14 of the Constitution, mandating that similarly situated employees be treated equally

It relied on State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, which establishes that service jurisprudence requires uniform treatment of all similarly placed persons regardless of who litigated first

the principle that pay fixation constitutes a recurring cause of action

Lt. Col Suprita Chandel v. Union of India, affirming that there is no justification to penalize employees for not having litigated earlier when the issue involves a settled point of law

The Tribunal reasoned that since both CBDT and CBIC function under the common Department of Revenue, and CBDT had already implemented the retrospective scale from 01.01.1996 following a Special Anomaly Committee report, the same must apply to the applicant to avoid discrimination

The Bench rejected the respondents' plea of limitation, noting that the Special Anomaly Committee's report was finalized only in late 2023, providing a fresh context for the claim

the Tribunal observed that multiple Benches (Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kolkata, and Chennai) had already granted this relief to over 1,500 employees, and the CBIC had accepted these decisions

The Court concluded that these judicial pronouncements are judgments in rem

Treating the applicant differently would be arbitrary, especially since the department had already implemented similar directions for other applicants in the same bench

It held that restricting the benefit to 21.04.2004 was unsustainable and violated the principle of equality

The respondents were directed to refix the applicant’s pay in the grades of Inspector and Superintendent on a notional basis effective from 01.01.1996, with actual monetary benefits and arrears payable from 21.04.2004

This includes the recalculation of pensionary benefits, to be completed within two months from the receipt of the order