Revised pay scales apply notionally from 1 January 1996 and monetarily from 21 April 2004.

The applicants were retired employees of the Central Excise Department who had served as Inspectors and Superintendents of Central Excise.

Prior to 1 January 1996, Inspectors/Preventive Officers/Examiners were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1,640–2,900, while Superintendents/Appraisers were placed in the scale of Rs. 2,000–3,500.

Pursuant to the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission, the revised scales of Rs. 6,500–10,500 for Inspectors and Rs. 7,500–12,000 for Superintendents were introduced, but the benefit was made financially effective only from 21 April 2004 instead of 1 January 1996.

The applicants sought notional fixation of pay with effect from 1 January 1996, actual monetary benefits from that date or, alternatively, from the date of appointment, together with arrears, pensionary revision and other consequential benefits.

The respondents opposed the applications through their Standing Counsel.

The Tribunal considered the matters together because the facts, subject matter and reliefs were identical.

Whether the applicants were entitled to notional fixation of pay in the revised scales of Rs. 6,500–10,500 and Rs. 7,500–12,000 with effect from 1 January 1996 under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997.

Whether the applicants were entitled to actual monetary benefits, including arrears and consequential pensionary benefits, from 1 January 1996 or only from 21 April 2004 pursuant to the Anomaly Committee’s recommendations and the consequential Office Memorandum.

The Tribunal applied the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997, under which the revised pay scales were required to be given effect from 1 January 1996.

The Tribunal followed the Hyderabad Bench’s decision in OA No. 1089/2019, which directed notional fixation from 1 January 1996 and actual monetary benefits from 21 April 2004; that decision was affirmed by the Telangana High Court and the Supreme Court.

It also relied on the Jaipur Bench decision, affirmed by the Rajasthan High Court and the Supreme Court, recognising that denial of the revised scale from 1 January 1996 resulted in discriminatory treatment of similarly situated employees.

It relied on the principle that employees similarly situated in the matter of Fifth Central Pay Commission benefits must receive equal treatment and cannot be denied the revised scale from the date applicable to their cadre merely because actual financial implementation was deferred.

The Tribunal found that the legal issue was no longer res integra, since the Hyderabad Bench had already adjudicated the same dispute and its decision had attained finality after affirmation by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

The Jaipur litigation further supported the proposition that employees in the relevant Inspector and Superintendent cadres were entitled to parity with similarly situated employees under the Fifth Central Pay Commission recommendations.

Applying those precedents and noting that its own earlier orders in OAs Nos. 274/2025, 795/2025 and 811/2025 had granted identical relief and had been implemented by the Department, the Tribunal held that the applicants’ pay had to be refixed notionally from 1 January 1996.

However, consistent with the applicable administrative decision and precedent, the actual financial benefit was limited to the period commencing 21 April 2004.

The respondents were directed to refix the applicants’ pay under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997, granting the revised scales for the posts of Inspector and Superintendent on a notional basis from 1 January 1996 and on an actual monetary basis from 21 April 2004, along with consequential benefits, including pensionary benefits.

The exercise was directed to be completed within two months from receipt of the order.

The Original Applications were accordingly disposed of at the admission stage.