Similarly situated employees are entitled to retrospective notional pay fixation to ensure constitutional parity.

The applicant, a retired Superintendent of Central Excise, sought the benefit of an upgraded pay scale (Rs. 6500-10500 for the period as Inspector and Rs. 7500-12000 as Superintendent) effective from January 1, 1996—the date the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC) became operational.

While the government implemented these scales via a letter dated April 21, 2004, it limited the actual financial benefits to the date of the letter rather than retrospectively from 1996.

The applicant relied on various judicial precedents from the Supreme Court and High Courts where similarly situated employees in the Income Tax and Customs departments were granted notional fixation from 1996.

The respondents opposed the application on grounds of limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, asserting the applicant was a "fence-sitter" seeking to revive a stale claim based on unrelated judgments.

1. Whether the Original Application is barred by limitation and laches due to the delay in approaching the Tribunal.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to notional fixation of pay from January 1, 1996, and actual monetary benefits from April 21, 2004, to maintain parity with similarly situated employees.

3. Whether judicial decisions granting retrospective pay benefits in similar matters operate in rem or are restricted in personam to the original litigants.

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, which mandates that similarly situated persons must be treated alike in service jurisprudence.

It relied on State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, establishing that service benefits granted to one set of employees should be extended to all others similarly placed.

Regarding the "model employer" obligations, the court cited K.L. Shephard v. Union of India, holding that employees should not be penalized for not litigating earlier if the law is settled.

On the issue of limitation, the Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's reasoning in W.P. (C) No. 15760/2023, which held that once the government accepts a Pay Commission recommendation, benefits cannot be arbitrarily restricted to a later date, and such claims are not barred by laches.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' plea regarding limitation, observing that pay fixation constitutes a recurring cause of action and that the specific anomaly was only fully resolved following the Special Anomaly Committee's report in September 2023.

The Tribunal noted that both CBDT and CBIC function under the same Department of Revenue; therefore, recommendations implemented for one board must apply to the other to avoid discrimination.

The court reasoned that since the Hyderabad Bench (affirmed by the Supreme Court) had already granted notional fixation from 1996 to similarly placed Inspectors and Superintendents, the issue was no longer res integra.

The Tribunal concluded that the prior judgments were judgments in rem because they addressed a class-wide pay anomaly.

Consequently, denying the applicant retrospective notional fixation would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

The respondents were directed to re-fix the applicant's pay and grant all consequential benefits, including revised pensionary benefits, within two months.

The court emphasized that as a model employer, the department should have extended these benefits across the board without forcing individual employees into litigation.

No order as to costs was made.