Pay scale revisions operate in rem, entitling similarly situated employees to retrospective notional fixation and parity.

The applicant, a retired Assistant Director of the National Academy of Customs, Indirect Taxes and Narcotics (NACIN), challenged the effective date of the revised pay scales recommended by the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC).

While the 5th CPC proposals generally took effect on 01.01.1996, the revised scales for Inspectors/Preventive Officers (Rs. 6500–10500) and Superintendents/Appraisers (Rs. 7500–12000) were made effective only from 21.04.2004 via Office Memoranda

The applicant sought notional pay fixation from 01.01.1996 and actual arrears from 21.04.2004, citing parity with similarly situated employees in the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and other regions of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) who had secured such relief through various High Court and Tribunal orders

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

1. Whether the revised pay scales under the 5th CPC should be granted notionally from 01.01.1996 to the applicant to ensure parity with similarly situated employees

2. Whether the Original Application is barred by limitation and laches given the lapse of time since the cause of action in 1996/2004

3. Whether the judicial precedents granting this relief constitute judgments in rem, requiring the department to extend benefits to all similarly placed employees without individual litigation

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle of Article 14 of the Constitution regarding equality and non-discrimination in service matters

It relied on State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, which established that similarly situated persons should be treated similarly in service jurisprudence

Regarding delay, it referenced the principle that pay fixation constitutes a recurring cause of action and cited the Delhi High Court’s view in W.P.(C) No. 15760/2023 that delay should not bar relief when the government fails to extend benefits established by prior litigation to similarly placed employees

It also considered the doctrine of in rem judgments versus in personam as discussed in K.L. Shephard v. Union of India

The Tribunal found that the Special Anomaly Committee, constituted following the Calcutta High Court’s directions, had already recommended granting the enhanced pay scale notionally from 01.01.1996 for CBDT employees

It reasoned that since both CBDT and CBIC function under the common Department of Revenue, there was no justification for a separate committee or disparate treatment

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' plea of limitation, noting that multiple Benches across India had already implemented these benefits for over 1,500 employees, and the department, as a model employer, should have extended the benefit to all similarly situated staff without forcing further litigation

The Tribunal concluded that the previous orders were judgments in rem because they addressed a general pay anomaly applicable to the entire cadre

The respondents were directed to: (i) refix the applicant's pay in the grades of Inspector and Superintendent notionally with effect from 01.01.1996 under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997; and (ii) 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 costs were awarded