Retrospective pay revision must be extended to all similarly situated employees as a judgment in rem.

The applicant joined the Customs Department as an Examiner on February 10, 1993, and was subsequently promoted to Appraiser and Assistant Commissioner

Following the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC), the pay scales for Inspectors/Customs Examiners and Superintendents/Appraisers were revised to Rs. 6500–10500 and Rs. 7500–12000, respectively

However, the respondents made these revised scales effective from April 21, 2004, rather than January 1, 1996 (the implementation date of the 5th CPC)

Despite favorable rulings from various Tribunals, High Courts, and the Supreme Court granting retrospective benefits to similarly situated employees in the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC), the applicant was denied the same

The applicant filed this Original Application (OA) seeking notional pay fixation from January 1, 1996, and actual arrears with interest

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of notional fixation of the upgraded pay scale with effect from January 1, 1996, instead of April 21, 2004

2. Whether the Original Application is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, or if the applicant is a "fence-sitter" ineligible for relief

3. Whether the judicial precedents granting this relief constitute judgments in rem, requiring uniform application to all similarly situated employees regardless of whether they were parties to previous litigations

The court primarily applied Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which mandates that all similarly situated persons must be treated equally

It relied on the principle established in State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, holding that service jurisprudence requires benefits granted to one set of employees to be extended to others similarly placed

Regarding limitation, the court considered Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, but balanced it against the doctrine of "recurring cause of action" in pay fixation matters and the ruling in K.L. Shephard & Others v. Union of India, which states that employees should not be penalized for not litigating earlier

The court also followed the recommendations of the Special Anomaly Committee, which suggested notional fixation from 1996 for the Department of Revenue

The Tribunal observed that a Special Anomaly Committee, constituted following the Calcutta High Court's directions, had already recommended that the enhanced pay scales be granted notionally from January 1, 1996

Since both CBDT and CBIC function under the common Department of Revenue, the Tribunal held that there was no justification for treating CBIC employees differently

On the issue of delay, the Tribunal rejected the "fence-sitter" argument, noting that pay fixation constitutes a recurring cause of action and that several High Courts (Delhi and Madras) have held that the government, as a model employer, should extend such benefits suo motu once the law is settled

The Tribunal emphasized that previous judgments on this specific pay anomaly were judgments in rem, meaning they applied to the entire class of affected employees, and the department's attempt to treat them as in personam was arbitrary and legally unsustainable

It held that the applicant is entitled to parity with other similarly situated officers who received retrospective benefits

The respondents were directed to refix the applicant’s pay in the grades of Inspector and Superintendent on a notional basis from January 1, 1996, and on an actual monetary basis from April 21, 2004

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

No order was made as to costs