Revised 5th CPC scales apply notionally from 1996 to ensure parity for similarly situated employees.

The applicant joined as an Inspector in the Customs & Central Excise Department in 1990, was promoted to Superintendent in 2005, and retired as Assistant Commissioner in 2023

Under the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC), the pay scales for Inspectors and Superintendents were revised to Rs. 6500–10500 and Rs. 7500–12000, respectively. However, the government made these revisions effective from 21.04.2004 instead of the standard implementation date of 01.01.1996

The applicant filed this Original Application (OA) seeking retrospective notional pay fixation from 01.01.1996 and actual arrears, citing parity with similarly situated employees in the Income Tax Department (CBDT) and other regions where various Benches of the Tribunal and High Courts had already granted such relief

The respondents opposed the claim on grounds of limitation, characterizing the applicant as a "fence-sitter" who approached the Tribunal belatedly

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to notional fixation of the revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to maintain parity with similarly situated employees

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

3. Whether previous judicial pronouncements granting this relief operate as judgments in rem or are confined in personam to the original litigants

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

It relied on the precedent in State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, which stipulates that service jurisprudence requires uniform treatment of all persons in a class regardless of who approached the court first

Regarding delay, the court referred to the recurring cause of action doctrine in pay fixation matters and cited K.L. Shephard v. Union of India, holding that employees should not be penalized for failing to litigate earlier if the legal principle is already settled

It further noted that once a Special Anomaly Committee recommendation is implemented for one wing (CBDT), it must apply to the other (CBIC) under the same Department of Revenue

The Tribunal observed that the Hyderabad and Jaipur Benches, affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, had already established that denying the 01.01.1996 effective date was discriminatory

The court rejected the respondents' limitation argument, noting that the Special Anomaly Committee—constituted per the Kolkata High Court’s directions—only finalized its recommendations in September 2023; thus, the applicant’s subsequent filing was not unreasonably delayed

The Tribunal reasoned that since both CBDT and CBIC function under the Department of Revenue, separate standards for pay fixation dates cannot exist

It further clarified that judgments concerning class-wide pay anomalies are judgments in rem; therefore, the department’s attempt to restrict benefits to specific litigants was arbitrary and legally unsustainable

The Tribunal allowed the OA and set aside the impugned orders. The respondents were directed to refix the applicant's pay in the grades of Inspector and Superintendent and calculate all consequential benefits, including pensionary adjustments, within two months. No costs were awarded