Respondents must consider applicants’ claims in light of the prior ruling.

The 82 applicants, serving or retired Income Tax Department officials and their legal representatives, sought relief concerning pay fixation/re-fixation.

Their counsel submitted that the matter was covered by an earlier Tribunal decision and would be satisfied with a similar direction; respondents raised no objection.

The Tribunal referred to the decision in OA No. 2233/2025, as followed in OA No. 1445/2026, which directed extension of benefits under the Office Memorandum dated 27 June 2025 to similarly situated applicants.

The Tribunal ultimately directed consideration of the present applicants’ cases in light of OA No. 4516/2025.

1. Whether the applicants’ cases should be considered in light of the earlier Tribunal decision in OA No. 4516/2025.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to comply with that direction within a specified period.

The Tribunal did not determine the merits or independently set out a legal test. It relied on the prior Tribunal decision referred to by the parties.

The reproduced reasoning in OA No. 2233/2025 states that similarly situated employees should receive equal treatment, regardless of association membership, and cites State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747, and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, in support of that principle.

The reproduced order also refers to the Office Memorandum dated 27 June 2025 concerning notional pay fixation from 1 January 1996 and actual monetary benefits from 21 April 2004.

The applicants relied on an earlier decision that had already been implemented, and the respondents did not oppose a similar direction.

Without examining the merits, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the applicants’ cases in light of OA No. 4516/2025.

It did not independently decide entitlement to pay fixation or consequential benefits in this OA.

No order as to costs was made.