Facts
The applicant, Karun Kumar Kataria, joined the respondents' department as an Inspector on January 31, 1992, and was promoted to Superintendent on November 1, 2010.
Source reference: p.2, para. 3He voluntarily retired on August 14, 2024.
Source reference: p.2, para. 3Following the 4th Pay Commission, Superintendents and Inspectors were granted pay scales of Rs. 2000-3500 and Rs. 1640-2900 respectively.
Source reference: p.2, para. 4The 5th Pay Commission recommended pay scales of Rs. 6500-10500 for Superintendents and Rs. 5500-9000 for Inspectors, effective January 1, 1996.
Source reference: p.2, para. 4An anomaly arose, leading to the revision of pay scales for cadres in CBDT and CBCE via OM dated April 21, 2004 (Annexure A-1) to Rs. 7500-12000 for Superintendents and Rs. 6500-10500 for Inspectors.
Source reference: p.3, para. 4This revised scale was explicitly stated to take effect from the date of the OM, i.e., April 21, 2004.
Source reference: p.3, para. 4The applicant contends that other ministries and departments, such as the Railway Account Staff and the Geological Survey of India, received the benefit of higher pay scales notionally from January 1, 1996, while his department was denied this benefit.
Source reference: p.3-4, para. 5 & 6The applicant subsequently filed this Original Application (OA) seeking to quash the OM dated April 21, 2004, to the extent it grants upgraded pay scale from April 21, 2004, instead of January 1, 1996, and to quash subsequent denial letters.
Source reference: p.2, para. 1Issues
1. Whether the OM dated April 21, 2004, granting an upgraded pay scale to Superintendents and Inspectors, should be retrospectively applied from January 1, 1996, instead of April 21, 2004.
Source reference: p.2, para. 1; p.4, para. 8Law Applied
The Tribunal applied the principle of parity in pay scales based on the recommendations of the 4th and 5th Pay Commissions, noting that similar cadres in other government departments, including the organized Accounts cadre and the Accounts Department in Railways, were granted notional fixation of upgraded pay scales from January 1, 1996.
Source reference: p.5, para. 26The Tribunal also relied on precedents set by its own benches and superior courts, which established that denying retrospective notional benefit to similarly situated employees constituted arbitrary and illegal discrimination.
Source reference: p.5-6, para. 8-10Specifically, it cited the Mumbai Bench of CAT's order in O.A. No. 86/2008 dated January 17, 2012, which held the prospective effect of pay scale revision as arbitrary and illegal.
Source reference: p.5, para. 27The Supreme Court's approval of granting notional benefit from January 1, 1996, to the Accounts Cadre of Railways via an order dated September 9, 2024, in SLP No. 2944/2024.
Source reference: p.6, para. 10Reasoning
The Tribunal found that the applicant's case was identical to previous litigations where the issue of retrospective applicability of upgraded pay scales was decided in favor of the employees.
Source reference: p.7, para. 11 & 12The court specifically referenced its own previous order in O.A. No. 207/2022 and connected matters, dated December 11, 2024, which quashed the OM dated April 21, 2004, to the extent it granted the benefit of upgraded pay scales with immediate effect only.
Source reference: p.7, para. 12In that prior decision, the Tribunal explicitly held that applicants were entitled to the benefit of upgraded pay scales notionally from January 1, 1996, and actually from April 21, 2004, along with consequential benefits.
Source reference: p.7-8, para. 12This was based on the established parity in pay scales between Income Tax Officers and comparable posts in the Accounts Department in Railways, a parity already accepted by the Ministry of Finance.
Source reference: p.5, para. 26(a); p.7, para. 11The Tribunal distinguished between notional fixation and actual payment, citing the general practice of allowing revised pay scales on a notional basis to align with the applicable date in other similar cases.
Source reference: p.5, para. 26(b)The Supreme Court's affirmation in Union of India and Others Vs. Prakash Bhaskar Chaudhari Deceased through LR and Others also reinforced the principle that employees were entitled to revised pay scales with effect from January 1, 1996, to ensure parity.
Source reference: p.6-7, para. 10Holding
The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was similarly situated to those in previously decided cases and was therefore entitled to the same relief.
The O.M. dated April 21, 2004, was quashed to the extent it granted the benefit of upgraded pay scales only with immediate effect.
Source reference: p.7, para. 12(i); p.8, para. 13The Tribunal directed the respondents to grant the applicant the benefit of upgraded pay scales notionally effective from January 1, 1996, and actually from April 21, 2004, along with consequential benefits of fixation of pay/pension and arrears.
Source reference: p.7-8, para. 12(ii) & (iii)The benefits are to be granted within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
Source reference: p.8, para. 14Original Court PDF
Karun Kumar Kataria v. Union of India and Others [O.A. No. 248/2026]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in