Respondents must decide pending pay-fixation representations by reasoned order and extend benefits to similarly situated employees.

The 40 applicants, employees under the respondent Income Tax Department, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking refixation of their pay under Rule 7 read with Note 2A and Illustration 4A of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, and the Ministry of Finance Office Memorandum dated 13 November 2009.

They asserted that the upgraded pay scale of ₹7,450–11,500 should be treated as the existing pay scale as on 1 January 2006, with pay fixation by applying the multiplication factor of 1.86 in the pay band of ₹9,300–34,800 with Grade Pay of ₹4,600.

The applicants relied on orders of the Principal Bench in O.A. Nos. 1095/2014, 3975/2015 and 3141/2023, an order of the Jaipur Bench in O.A. No. 336/2025, and the respondents’ implementation order dated 11 November 2025 issued by the Principal Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Jodhpur.

They stated that representations seeking similar pay fixation had been submitted to the competent authorities but had not been decided.

M.A. No. 601/2026, filed under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, seeking joint prosecution of the matter, was allowed.

Whether the applicants’ pending representations seeking pay refixation under Rule 7 read with Note 2A and Illustration 4A of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 were required to be considered by the competent respondent authority in light of the earlier Tribunal orders and the implementation order dated 11 November 2025?

Whether, upon verification, the applicants were similarly situated to the employees who had obtained the benefit under the earlier Tribunal decisions and the implementation order, and consequently entitled to the same benefit?

Whether the Tribunal should itself adjudicate the applicants’ substantive entitlement to pay refixation and arrears at this stage?

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which an aggrieved government employee may seek redress before the Tribunal.

It applied Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, permitting joint prosecution where the applicants have a common interest and the Tribunal is satisfied that joint proceedings are appropriate.

The substantive claim was founded on Rule 7 read with Note 2A and Illustration 4A of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, together with the Ministry of Finance Office Memorandum dated 13 November 2009, concerning fixation of pay upon revision or upgradation of the applicable pay scale.

The Tribunal also directed consideration of the applicants’ claim in light of the earlier orders of the Principal Bench and Jaipur Bench and the respondents’ implementation order dated 11 November 2025; however, those orders were treated as matters for consideration and comparison, not as an automatic adjudication of entitlement.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants’ immediate grievance was the non-consideration of their representations rather than a claim requiring determination on the merits at the admission stage.

Since the applicants asserted that they were similarly situated to the beneficiaries of the earlier Tribunal decisions and the Jodhpur implementation order, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to direct the competent authority to examine the individual cases in accordance with the applicable pay-fixation rules and the cited decisions.

The direction was therefore conditional: the respondents were required to verify whether the applicants were in fact similarly circumstanced before extending any corresponding benefit.

The Tribunal expressly refrained from deciding the substantive merits of the pay-fixation claim and kept all points open.

Respondent No. 2 or another competent authority was directed to treat the Original Application as part of the applicants’ representations, consider them in light of the cited Tribunal orders and the implementation order dated 11 November 2025, verify each applicant’s case, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

If the applicants were found to be similarly situated, the respondents were directed to extend the same benefit granted under the implementation order.

No order as to costs was made.