Pay revision benefits operate in rem and apply retrospectively to all similarly situated employees.

The applicant, a retired Assistant Commissioner of GST Central Excise, joined as an Inspector in 1982 and was promoted to Superintendent in 1997.

Following the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC), the Union Government revised the pay scales for Inspectors and Superintendents via an Office Memorandum dated 21.04.2004, but made the benefits effective prospectively from the date of the order rather than retrospectively from 01.01.1996.

The applicant sought retrospective implementation on par with similarly situated employees in the Income Tax Department (CBDT) and other regions of the CBIC who had secured favorable orders from various High Courts and the Supreme Court.

The respondents contested the claim on the grounds of limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, characterizing the applicant as a "fence-sitter" who approached the Tribunal after a significant delay.

1. Whether the revised pay scales for Inspectors and Superintendents under the 5th CPC are to be granted with effect from 01.01.1996 or from 21.04.2004.

2. Whether the Original Application is barred by limitation and the doctrine of laches, or if pay fixation constitutes a continuing cause of action.

3. Whether judicial decisions granting retrospective pay fixation to similarly situated employees in the same department operate in rem or in personam.

Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which mandates that all similarly situated persons must be treated equally in service jurisprudence.

State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, establishing that service benefits granted to one set of employees must be extended to others similarly placed to avoid discrimination.

K.L. Shephard Others v. Union of India, which holds that non-litigants should not be penalized for not having approached the court earlier if the underlying legal issue is settled.

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, but prioritized the "recurring cause of action" doctrine applicable to pay fixation.

The Tribunal observed that both the CBDT and CBIC function under the common Department of Revenue, and a Special Anomaly Committee had already recommended retrospective notional fixation from 01.01.1996 for CBDT employees, which the government accepted.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' plea regarding limitation and "fence-sitters," noting that once a legal principle regarding pay scales is settled by the Supreme Court (as in the Hyderabad and Jaipur Bench cases), the department as a "model employer" is duty-bound to extend the benefit to all similarly situated employees without forcing them into litigation.

The Tribunal reasoned that the previous judgments were in rem because they addressed a general anomaly in the implementation of the 5th CPC affecting a whole class of officers.

It held that denying the same benefit to the applicant while implementing it for over 1,500 others across India was arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

The respondents were directed to refix the applicant’s pay in the grades of Inspector and Superintendent with effect from 01.01.1996 on a notional basis, and to grant actual monetary benefits, including arrears and revised pensionary benefits, with effect from 21.04.2004.

The exercise must be completed within two months from the date of receipt of the order.

No order as to costs was made.