Similarly situated employees are entitled to pay fixation benefits derived from upgraded pre-revised scales.

Ninety-six applicants, employed across various Commissionerates of CGST, Customs, and Central Excise, filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

They sought a direction for pay fixation in the scale of ₹7450-11500/- as of 01.01.2006 by applying a multiplication factor of 1.86, pursuant to the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008

The applicants contended they are similarly situated to employees who received favorable orders from the Principal Bench (OA No. 1095/2014, OA No. 3975/2015, OA No. 3141/2023) and the Jaipur Bench (OA No. 336/2025) of the Tribunal

They further highlighted that the Jaipur Bench's order had already been implemented by the Jodhpur Commissionerate via order dated 11.11.2025

Despite submitting multiple representations to the authorities, the applicants received no response

1. Whether the respondents are legally bound to consider the applicants' pending representations for pay fixation in light of Rule 7 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and existing judicial precedents

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to the same benefits extended to similarly situated employees under the implementation order dated 11.11.2025

The Tribunal's directions were rooted in Rule 7 read with Note 2A and Illustration 4A of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, and Office Memorandum F. No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 13.11.2009, which prescribe the methodology for pay fixation in the pre-revised scale of ₹7450-11500/-

The court also relied on the principle of administrative parity and the judicial precedents set by the Principal Bench and Jaipur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding the application of the 1.86 multiplication factor for the relevant pay band

The Tribunal observed that the applicants sought a limited and "innocuous" relief, specifically the disposal of their pending representations

Consequently, the Tribunal chose not to delve into the merits of the pay fixation claim at this stage

The court reasoned that if, upon verification, the applicants are found to be factually and legally "similarly circumstanced" to the litigants in the cited OAs (such as OA No. 336/2025), the respondents must maintain consistency and extend the same benefits to avoid discriminatory treatment

This approach connects the procedural requirement of a "reasoned and speaking order" with the substantive legal requirement of parity

The respondents were ordered to pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving the certified copy of the judgment

The holding explicitly specifies that if the applicants are found to be similarly situated to the beneficiaries of the cited precedents, the respondents must extend the same benefits as granted in the Jodhpur Commissionerate’s implementation order dated 11.11.2025

All points of merit were kept open for the authorities' consideration