Revised pay benefits operate in rem and must be extended to all similarly situated employees to ensure parity.

The applicant joined the Department of Revenue as a Stenographer Grade III and was promoted to Intelligence Officer (IO) in the Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on December 23, 2002, and subsequently to Senior Intelligence Officer (SIO) on December 8, 2018

Following the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC) effective January 1, 1996, pay scales for Inspectors and Superintendents were initially fixed at lower rates but were later upgraded by a Ministry of Finance Office Memorandum (OM) dated April 21, 2004

However, the government implemented this upgrade prospectively from the date of the OM rather than retrospectively from January 1, 1996.

The applicant, who retired on July 31, 2020, sought notional pay fixation from the date of his promotion to the IO cadre (December 23, 2002) and actual monetary arrears based on several judicial precedents from various Benches of the Tribunal and High Courts

The respondents contested the claim on grounds of limitation, laches, and the argument that prior judgments were in personam

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the upgraded pay scale on a notional basis from the date of his promotion (December 23, 2002) and actual monetary benefits from April 21, 2004, consistent with the 5th CPC recommendations

2. Whether the claim is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, or if the applicant is a "fence-sitter" precluded from seeking parity

3. Whether the previous judicial decisions granting similar relief constitute judgments in rem, requiring uniform application to all similarly situated employees

The Tribunal applied the principle of parity in service jurisprudence as established in State of Karnataka Others v. C. Lalitha, which mandates that similarly situated persons must be treated similarly

It further relied on the doctrine regarding judgments in rem from K.L. Shephard Others v. Union of India, asserting that employees should not be penalized for not litigating if the legal issue has been settled for their cadre

The Tribunal followed the binding precedent of the Hyderabad Bench in OA No. 1089/2019, which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Diary No. 59005/2024, granting notional fixation from 1996 and actual benefits from 2004

Regarding limitation, it applied the reasoning from the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 15760/2023, holding that once the government accepts a Pay Commission recommendation, benefits should be extended to all eligible employees without barring claims due to delay

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' plea of limitation, noting that the "Special Anomaly Committee"—constituted following the Kolkata High Court's directions—only finalized its recommendations on September 22, 2023; thus, the cause of action was effectively revived

The Tribunal observed that since both CBDT and CBIC function under the same Department of Revenue, the retrospective benefits granted to CBDT employees must be extended to CBIC employees to satisfy the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution

The court emphasized that over 1,500 similarly situated employees had already received this benefit through various judicial orders, rendering the previous decisions judgments in rem

It was determined that the denial of retrospective application for the applicant while granting it to others in the same department was arbitrary and unsustainable in law

It held that the applicant is entitled to the revised pay scale on a notional basis from December 23, 2002 (his date of entry into the IO cadre), and on an actual monetary basis from April 21, 2004

The respondents were directed to refix the applicant's pay, calculate consequential arrears, and issue a revised Pension Payment Order (PPO) within two months of receiving the order

No order was made as to costs