Pay scale upgrades operate in rem, requiring uniform notional application to all similarly situated employees.

The applicants were Inspectors and Superintendents in the Central Excise & Customs Department (now CBIC) between 01.01.1996 and 21.04.2004

Following the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC), the pay scales for Inspectors and Superintendents were revised to Rs. 6500–10500 and Rs. 7500–12000, respectively

However, the government implemented these revised scales effective from 21.04.2004 instead of 01.01.1996

Multiple Benches of the Tribunal and High Courts (specifically Kolkata, Hyderabad, and Rajasthan), subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court, directed that these benefits be granted notionally from 01.01.1996

The applicants sought similar retrospective pay and pension fixation

The respondents opposed the application on grounds of limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, arguing that the applicants were "fence-sitters" who approached the forum nearly two decades late

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the upgraded pay scales notionally with effect from 01.01.1996 and actually from 21.04.2004 on the grounds of parity

2. Whether the claim is barred by limitation and the doctrine of laches or "fence-sitting"

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that similarly situated employees must be treated uniformly

It relied on the doctrine established in State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, which holds that service jurisprudence requires benefits granted to one employee to be extended to all others similarly placed

Regarding limitation, it applied the "recurring cause of action" principle for pay fixation cases, as supported by K.C. Sharma v. Union of India

It further utilized the distinction between judgments in rem and in personam, citing Lt. Col Suprita Chandel v. Union of India to assert that judicial pronouncements on departmental pay anomalies should apply to the entire cadre to avoid unnecessary litigation

The Tribunal found that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) and the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) both operate under the Department of Revenue; since the government had already implemented the retrospective benefits for CBDT following a Special Anomaly Committee report, the same must apply to CBIC

The Bench rejected the "fence-sitter" argument, noting that the finality of the legal issue was only established recently through successive litigations culminating in 2023-2024, and that pay fixation is a continuous wrong

The Tribunal observed that the department had already extended these benefits to over 1,500 employees across India via various judicial orders

Consequently, the Bench reasoned that since the underlying judicial orders were judgments in rem, the respondent department could not arbitrarily restrict the benefit to only those who had previously approached the court

It held that the applicants are entitled to the revised pay scales of Rs. 6500-10500 (Inspectors) and Rs. 7500-12000 (Superintendents) under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997, on a notional basis from 01.01.1996 and on an actual monetary basis from 21.04.2004

The respondents were directed to refix the applicants' pay and pensionary benefits and disburse arrears within two months

No order as to costs