Revised pay scales must be notionally fixed from 1 January 1996, with monetary benefits from 21 April 2004.

The applicants were officers serving or having served as Inspectors and Superintendents of Central Excise. Under the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission, the relevant pay scales were initially fixed at ₹5,500–9,000 for Inspectors and ₹6,500–10,500 for Superintendents. Comparable posts in the CBI and IB were subsequently granted upgraded scales of ₹6,500–10,500 and ₹7,500–12,000, respectively, with effect from 1 January 1996, while the applicants’ posts in Central Excise did not receive the corresponding revision.

The applicants relied on decisions of the Mumbai and Kolkata Benches of the Tribunal, the Hyderabad Bench’s order dated 9 January 2024 in OA No. 1089/2019 and batch, and decisions of the Telangana High Court and the Supreme Court affirming the grant of the enhanced scales to similarly situated Central Tax and Customs officers.

The Special Anomaly Committee constituted pursuant to the Calcutta High Court’s directions had recommended notional fixation from 1 January 1996 and actual monetary benefits from 21 April 2004; the recommendation was accepted by the Government in respect of CBDT employees.

The respondents nevertheless rejected the applicants’ claim as not feasible, relying on departmental communications.

The applicants therefore approached the Chennai Bench seeking retrospective pay revision and consequential pensionary and other service benefits.

1. Whether the applicants, being similarly situated Inspectors and Superintendents of Central Excise, were entitled to fixation of the upgraded pay scales with effect from 1 January 1996 on the same basis as employees of CBDT and Central Tax and Customs.

2. Whether the upgraded pay scales were to be granted only notionally from 1 January 1996, with actual monetary benefits from 21 April 2004, or whether actual financial benefits were payable from 1 January 1996.

3. Whether the applicants’ claims were liable to be rejected on the grounds of delay, laches, or because the earlier judicial decisions had operated only in personam.

The Tribunal applied the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, holding that similarly situated government employees should receive similar service benefits and should not be subjected to discriminatory treatment.

It relied on State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747, for the proposition that a benefit granted to one group of similarly situated employees should ordinarily be extended to others similarly placed.

It relied on K.L. Shephard v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 431, for the principle that non-litigating employees should not be denied the same benefit merely because they had not approached the court.

The Tribunal also relied on the Hyderabad Bench’s decision in OA No. 1089/2019 and batch, affirmed by the Telangana High Court and the Supreme Court, which directed notional grant of the enhanced scales from 1 January 1996 with actual monetary benefits from 21 April 2004.

The pay refixation was directed under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997.

The Tribunal found that the applicants belonged to the same class of officers affected by the Fifth Pay Commission anomaly and the subsequent departmental pay-scale revision.

Since the Special Anomaly Committee had recommended retrospective notional fixation for similarly situated employees and the recommendation had been implemented in CBDT, the respondents could not arbitrarily deny equivalent treatment to Central Excise officers functioning under the same Department of Revenue.

The Tribunal rejected the distinction between judgments in rem and in personam, reasoning that the constitutional obligation to treat similarly situated employees alike required extension of the benefit beyond the original litigants.

It also held that the applicants’ delay was not fatal because pay fixation and pensionary consequences constituted continuing or recurring effects, and the applicants approached the Tribunal after the conclusion of the relevant litigation and the Special Anomaly Committee’s recommendation.

However, because the Hyderabad Bench’s order—affirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court—had prescribed notional benefits from 1 January 1996 and actual monetary benefits from 21 April 2004, the Tribunal adopted that same limitation.

The impugned departmental orders were set aside, and the respondents were directed to refix the applicants’ pay in the grades of Inspector and Superintendent under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997, notionally with effect from 1 January 1996.

The applicants were also granted actual monetary benefits from 21 April 2004, together with consequential benefits, including pensionary benefits.

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

There was no order as to costs.