Similarly situated employees are entitled to upgraded pay scales notionally from 01.01.1996 and actually from 21.04.2004.

The nine applicants, serving in different posts in the Income Tax Department, challenged the effective date of the upgraded/replacement pay scales granted under the Department of Expenditure’s Office Memorandum dated 21 April 2004.

They sought notional fixation of pay from 1 January 1996, actual monetary benefits from 21 April 2004, arrears from that date, and consequential revision of retiral and pensionary benefits.

The applicants relied on earlier orders of the Bangalore Bench in OAs Nos. 94/2024, 265/2024, 410/2024, 411/2024, 663/2024 and 24/2026, as well as the Karnataka High Court’s decision in W.P. No. 32729/2025 and connected matters, which had granted arrears from 21 April 2004 instead of limiting them to three years before the filing of the OAs.

The respondents contended that the applicants did not fall within the category of eligible persons under the Office Memorandum dated 27 June 2025 and had not submitted individual representations.

Whether the applicants, being similarly situated to employees who had already obtained the benefit of the upgraded pay scales, were entitled to parity notwithstanding their alleged exclusion under the Office Memorandum dated 27 June 2025 and their failure to submit individual representations?

Whether the benefit of the upgraded pay scales under the Office Memorandum dated 21 April 2004 was required to be given notionally from 1 January 1996 and actually, including arrears, from 21 April 2004?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the constitutional principle of equality under Article 14, holding that similarly situated employees must receive equal treatment and cannot be discriminated against merely because some employees approached a judicial forum while others did not.

The Tribunal relied on State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747, and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, for the principle that benefits granted to a class of identically situated employees should ordinarily be extended to others similarly placed.

It also followed the earlier orders of the Principal Bench and the Bangalore Bench concerning the upgraded pay scales, as well as the Karnataka High Court’s decision setting aside the restriction of arrears to three years preceding the filing of the applications.

The Tribunal found that the applicants were identically situated to the employees who had already been granted the upgraded pay-scale benefits.

The respondents’ objections based on non-membership of an association, absence of individual representations, or the applicants’ alleged exclusion under the 27 June 2025 Office Memorandum could not justify unequal treatment where the underlying service circumstances were the same.

Applying Article 14 and the principles in C. Lalitha and Arvind Kumar Srivastava, the Tribunal held that the benefit could not be confined only to those employees who had previously litigated.

It also followed the Karnataka High Court’s determination that restricting arrears to three years prior to the filing of the OAs was unsustainable, thereby entitling the applicants to arrears from 21 April 2004.

The effective-date restriction in the Office Memorandum dated 21 April 2004 was modified accordingly.

The applicants were granted arrears from 21 April 2004 and all consequential benefits, including revision of retiral and pensionary benefits arising from the revised pay fixation.

The respondents were directed to comply within 12 weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order. The OA was disposed of without any order as to costs.