Similarly situated employees are entitled to notional pay fixation from 1996 and actual benefits from 2004.

The 24 applicants are Inspectors and Superintendents (Central Excise & Customs) who served during the period between 01.01.1996 and 21.04.2004.

Following the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendations, the pay scales for Inspectors were revised to Rs. 6500–10500 and for Superintendents to Rs. 7500–12000.

However, the government implemented these revised scales effective from 21.04.2004 instead of 01.01.1996 (the date the 5th CPC commenced).

The applicants challenged several Office Memoranda (OMs) and speaking orders that denied them retrospective benefits.

They sought notional pay fixation from 01.01.1996 and actual monetary benefits from 21.04.2004, citing parity with employees in the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and other regions who had already secured similar relief through litigation.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to notional fixation of the upgraded pay scales with effect from 01.01.1996 instead of 21.04.2004.

2. Whether the Original Application is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, or if the applicants are "fence-sitters" precluded from seeking relief.

3. Whether the judicial precedents granting similar benefits to other employees operate in rem (applying to all similarly situated) or in personam (applying only to the specific litigants).

The court primarily applied the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that similarly situated employees must be treated uniformly.

It relied on State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, which established that service jurisprudence postulates equal treatment for all similarly situated persons regardless of who approached the court first.

The court further applied the doctrine from K.L. Shephard & Ors. v. Union of India, holding that there is no justification to penalize employees for not litigating earlier.

Regarding limitation, it adhered to the view that pay fixation involves a recurring cause of action and that technical delays should not bar substantive justice when a Special Anomaly Committee has already recognized the underlying grievance.

The Tribunal observed that the Department of Revenue (the common parent department for both CBDT and CBIC) had already accepted a Special Anomaly Committee’s recommendation to grant notional fixation from 01.01.1996 for Income Tax employees.

Consequently, denying the same to Customs and Excise employees was deemed discriminatory.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' "fence-sitter" argument, noting that the Delhi High Court had previously ruled in similar matters that once the government accepts a CPC recommendation, it cannot arbitrarily determine a later date for the commencement of benefits.

The Bench reasoned that since the CBIC had already implemented similar orders for over 1,500 employees across various benches, the judgments had acquired the character of judgments in rem.

Therefore, the respondent department lacked the legal competence to treat these binding precedents as restricted to the original litigants only.

It held that the applicants are entitled to notional pay fixation in the revised grades from 01.01.1996 and actual monetary benefits (including arrears and pensionary adjustments) from 21.04.2004.

The respondents were directed to complete the re-fixation exercise within two months from the receipt of the order.

No order was made as to costs.