Retrospective pay scale revisions operate in rem, entitling all similarly situated employees to notional benefits.

The applicant joined as a Customs Examiner in 1994 and was subsequently promoted to Appraiser (2002) and Assistant Commissioner (2014)

Following the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendations, 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 21.04.2004 instead of 01.01.1996 (the date the 5th CPC took effect)

The applicant challenged the Office Memoranda and a speaking order dated 12.08.2025 that denied him retrospective benefits

He sought parity with similarly situated employees in the Income Tax department (CBDT) and other regions where Tribunals and High Courts had already granted notional fixation from 01.01.1996

The respondents opposed the plea on grounds of limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and categorized the applicant as a "fence-sitter"

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to notional fixation of the upgraded pay scale with effect from 01.01.1996 and actual monetary benefits from 21.04.2004 on the grounds of parity with similarly situated employees

2. Whether the claim is barred by limitation and laches, or if pay fixation constitutes a recurring cause of action

3. Whether the judicial precedents granting this relief operate in rem (applying to all similarly situated employees) or in personam (limited to the original litigants)

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, mandates against discriminating among similarly situated employees

It relied on the service jurisprudence principle established in State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, which postulates that benefits granted to one set of employees must extend to others similarly placed

The Tribunal considered the Doctrine of Judgment in Rem, as interpreted in K.L. Shephard v. Union of India, which held that employees should not be penalized for not litigating if the relief is of a general nature

Regarding limitation, it applied the principle that pay fixation involves a recurring cause of action, supported by Union of India v. Tarsem Singh.

The Tribunal observed that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) had already implemented the 01.01.1996 notional fixation following recommendations from a Special Anomaly Committee constituted via the Kolkata High Court's directions

Since both CBDT and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) function under the same Department of Revenue, the Tribunal held that separate committees were unnecessary and parity must be maintained

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' "fence-sitter" argument, noting that the Special Anomaly Committee's report was only finalized in late 2023, providing a fresh context for the applicant's claim

It further noted that the Hyderabad Bench’s decision in OA 1089/2019, which granted identical relief, had been affirmed by both the Telangana High Court and the Supreme Court, thereby attaining finality

The Bench concluded that these prior judgments were in rem because they addressed a general policy anomaly, and the Department could not unilaterally treat them as in personam to deny benefits to others

It held that the applicant is entitled to the revised pay scales on a notional basis from 01.01.1996 and on an actual monetary basis from 21.04.2004

The respondents were directed to refix the applicant’s pay in the grades of Inspector and Superintendent and grant all consequential benefits within two months

No order as to costs was made