Facts
The applicant, an Inspector/Superintendent with the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC), filed an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Source reference: p.1He challenged the respondents' decision to grant him upgraded pay/enhanced scale effective from 21.04.2004 instead of 01.01.1996.
Source reference: p.1The applicant claimed parity with officials in the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), arguing that since both boards fall under the Department of Revenue, the retrospective benefit granted to CBDT employees following various judicial interventions should also apply to him.
Source reference: p.2-3Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of revised/upgraded pay scales for the posts of Inspector and Superintendent on a notional basis w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
Source reference: p.12. Whether the benefits granted to employees of the CBDT based on the Special Anomaly Committee recommendations must be extended to employees of the CBIC.
Source reference: p.2Law Applied
The court relied on the principle of parity within the same department under the Ministry of Finance.
Source reference: p.2The precedent set by the CAT Hyderabad Bench in OA No. 1089/22019, which directed notional pay enhancement from 01.01.1996.
Source reference: p.2The ruling of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in Writ Petition No. 10490 of 2024 (UOI v. Siva Shankara Sastry), which held that since the Department of Revenue is common to both CBDT and CBIC, uniform pay benefits must apply.
Source reference: p.2The dismissal of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Diary No. 59005/2024 on 28.02.2025.
Source reference: p.3Reasoning
The Tribunal noted that the core controversy regarding the effective date of pay scale upgrades (01.01.1996 vs. 21.04.2004) had attained legal finality.
Source reference: p.3The Tribunal observed that the High Court of Telangana had previously rejected the Union's attempt to distinguish between the two Boards (CBDT and CBIC), ruling that a separate Anomaly Committee for CBIC was unnecessary because the Department of Revenue is a singular entity for this purpose.
Source reference: p.2Since the Supreme Court upheld the grant of retrospective notional benefits to similarly situated employees, the Tribunal reasoned that the respondents are legally bound to verify if the applicant's case is identical and, if so, extend the same relief to prevent discriminatory treatment.
Source reference: p.3-4Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the Original Application with a direction to the respondents to verify the facts and controversy of the case against the cited judgments (CAT Hyderabad, Telangana High Court, and the Supreme Court).
If the applicant’s case is found to be identical, the respondents are ordered to grant the upgraded pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 on a notional basis with consequential benefits within three months.
Source reference: p.4No order as to costs was made.
Source reference: p.4Original Court PDF
SUSHIL KUMAR JAKHARvsM/O FINANCE, D/O REVENUE
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in