Similarly situated employees are entitled to notional pay fixation from the Pay Commission's effective date.

The Applicant, a retired Superintendent of Central Excise, challenged a letter dated 29.08.2023 which limited the benefits of his upgraded pay scale (Rs. 6500-10500 for Inspector and Rs. 7500-12000 for Superintendent) to the date 21.04.2004

The Applicant contended that these scales, recommended by the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC), should be applicable from 01.01.1996 on an actual basis

He relied on several precedents where similarly situated employees of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) were granted these benefits retrospectively following litigation

The Respondents opposed the application on grounds of limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, arguing that the Applicant was a "fence-sitter" seeking to revive a stale claim based on subsequent judgments in unrelated cases

1. Whether the upgraded pay scales are to be granted with effect from 01.01.1996 (the date the 5th CPC became operational) or from 21.04.2004 (the date of the Office Memorandum)

2. Whether the claim is barred by limitation and whether the benefits granted in previous judicial pronouncements are judgments in rem or in personam

The Tribunal applied the principle of parity and equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, as interpreted in State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha (2006) 2 SCC 747, which mandates that similarly situated persons must be treated similarly

It further relied on K.L. Shephard & Others v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 431, holding that employees should not be penalized for not initially litigating if the issue has been settled for others

Regarding limitation, the Tribunal followed the view that pay fixation involves a recurring cause of action and that the "fence-sitter" doctrine does not apply when the government is expected to extend benefits of settled law to all similarly placed employees, as seen in W.P. (C) No. 15760/2023 (Delhi High Court)

The Tribunal observed that the issue was no longer res integra, as multiple Benches and High Courts had already adjudicated the matter in favor of the employees

The Tribunal noted that a Special Anomaly Committee, constituted following the Kolkata High Court's directions, had recommended the grant of enhanced pay scales notionally from 01.01.1996 for CBDT employees

Since both CBDT and CBIC function under the common Department of Revenue, the Tribunal reasoned there was no justification for disparate treatment

The Tribunal rejected the Respondents' plea of limitation, citing that the delay was explained by the prolonged litigation in other fora and that the Government, as a model employer, should have implemented these orders in rem rather than forcing individual litigation

It concluded that restricting the benefit to 2004 despite the anomaly arising in 1996 was arbitrary and unsustainable

It held that the Applicant is entitled to the refixation of pay in the upgraded scales with effect from 01.01.1996 on a notional basis, and actual monetary benefits (including arrears and revised pensionary benefits) from 21.04.2004

The Respondents were directed to complete the exercise within two months from the date of receipt of the order