Similarly situated employees are entitled to upgraded pay scales notionally from 1.1.1996 and actually from 21.4.2004.

Sixteen retired Income Tax Inspectors filed the original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the effect given to the Department of Expenditure’s Office Memorandum dated 21 April 2004, insofar as the upgraded/replacement pay scales were applied only from the date of the memorandum.

They sought notional pay fixation from 1 January 1996, actual monetary benefits and arrears from 21 April 2004, and consequential refixation of retiral benefits and pension.

The applicants relied on earlier orders of the Principal Bench and the Bangalore Bench granting similar relief to identically situated Income Tax Inspectors.

They also relied on the Karnataka High Court’s decision in W.P. No. 32729/2025 and connected matters, which set aside the restriction of arrears to three years preceding the filing of the applications and granted arrears from 21 April 2004.

The respondents contested the applicability of those decisions to the present applicants.

Whether the applicants, being identically situated retired Income Tax Inspectors, were entitled to the benefit of the upgraded pay scales notionally from 1 January 1996 and actually from 21 April 2004 under the Office Memorandum dated 21 April 2004

Whether the applicants were entitled to arrears and consequential retiral benefits from 21 April 2004, rather than being restricted to arrears for three years preceding the filing of the original application

Whether denial of the benefits granted to similarly situated employees would amount to discriminatory treatment contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which an aggrieved government servant may seek redress before the Tribunal.

It relied on the Office Memorandum dated 21 April 2004, which concerned upgraded/replacement pay scales for the relevant employees.

The Tribunal applied the principle of parity that similarly situated employees must receive equal treatment and that benefits judicially granted to one group cannot be denied to another identically situated group merely because the latter was not a member of an association or had approached the Tribunal separately.

This principle was supported by State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747, and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347.

It also followed the decisions in OA No. 2544/2015 and OA No. 2233/2025 of the Principal Bench, as well as the Karnataka High Court’s decision in W.P. No. 32729/2025 and connected matters, concerning notional fixation from 1 January 1996 and actual monetary benefits and arrears from 21 April 2004.

The Tribunal found that the applicants were identically placed with the employees who had already received the benefit of the upgraded pay scales.

The earlier decisions had recognized entitlement to notional fixation from 1 January 1996 and actual benefits from 21 April 2004, and had rejected distinctions based on association membership or the timing of litigation.

Although the Bangalore Bench had initially restricted arrears to three years preceding the filing of the applications, the Karnataka High Court subsequently quashed that restriction and granted arrears from 21 April 2004.

Applying the principle of equal treatment under Article 14 and following its earlier decision in OA No. 24/2026, the Tribunal held that the present applicants could not be denied the same relief.

The respondents were directed to extend to the applicants the upgraded pay scales under the Office Memorandum dated 21 April 2004 notionally from 1 January 1996 and actually from 21 April 2004.

The effective date in the Office Memorandum was modified accordingly, and the applicants were held entitled to arrears and consequential benefits, including refixation of retiral benefits, from 21 April 2004.

The respondents were directed to comply within twelve weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The application was disposed of without any order as to costs.