Retrospective pay parity judgments operate in rem and apply to all similarly situated employees.

The 24 applicants were Inspectors and Superintendents in the Central Excise and Customs Department between January 1, 1996, and April 21, 2004

Following the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendations, the government upgraded the pay scales for Inspectors (to Rs. 6500–10500) and Superintendents (to Rs. 7500–12000). However, through Office Memoranda dated April 21, 2004, and May 11, 2004, these revised scales were made effective only from April 21, 2004, instead of the 5th CPC commencement date of January 1, 1996

The applicants sought notional pay fixation from 1996 and actual monetary benefits thereafter, citing parity with Income Tax (CBDT) employees and successful litigants from other CAT Benches (Hyderabad, Mumbai, etc.) whose claims were upheld by the Supreme Court

The respondents opposed the OA on grounds of limitation, delay (labelling applicants as "fence-sitters"), and that previous judgments were in personam

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to notional fixation of the upgraded pay scales with effect from January 1, 1996, with actual monetary benefits from April 21, 2004

2. Whether the Original Application is barred by limitation and the doctrine of "fence-sitters" under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

3. Whether the judicial precedents granting retrospective notional fixation constitute judgments in rem or in personam

principle of parity under Article 14 of the Constitution, asserting that similarly situated employees must be treated equally

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding limitation but noted that pay fixation involves a recurring cause of action

precedent in State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, which established that service jurisprudence requires all similarly situated persons to be treated alike regardless of whether they approached the court earlier

"model employer" doctrine from K.L. Shephard v. Union of India and the Madras High Court’s ruling in W.P. No. 33537/2023, stating that employees should not be penalized for not litigating if the legal issue is settled

the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) and the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) both function under the Department of Revenue; therefore, once a Special Anomaly Committee recommended retrospective notional fixation for CBDT, the same benefit must extend to CBIC to avoid discrimination

Regarding delay, the Tribunal observed that the issue of pay scales remained in active litigation across various fora until recently, and the Special Anomaly Committee’s report was only submitted in September 2023, thus justifying the current application

The Tribunal rejected the "fence-sitter" argument by citing the Delhi High Court’s view that once the government accepts a pay commission recommendation, it cannot arbitrarily restrict the effective date for a specific group

the Tribunal held that previous orders from the Hyderabad Bench (affirmed by the Supreme Court) were judgments in rem because they addressed a general policy anomaly affecting an entire class of officers

the applicants are entitled to notional pay fixation in the revised grades starting from January 1, 1996, under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997. The respondents were directed to refix the applicants' pay notionally from January 1, 1996, and grant actual monetary arrears, including revised pensionary benefits, from April 21, 2004

The respondents must complete this exercise within two months of receiving the order

No costs were awarded