Similarly situated employees entitled to notional pay fixation from 01.01.1996 for upgraded 5th CPC scales.

The 25 applicants, serving as or retired from the posts of Inspectors and Superintendents in the Central Excise and Customs Department, sought retrospective implementation of the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendations.

While the 5th CPC took effect on 01.01.1996, the revised pay scales (Rs. 6500–10500 for Inspectors and Rs. 7500–12000 for Superintendents) were made effective only from 21.04.2004 via Office Memoranda.

The applicants challenged the speaking order dated 25.07.2024, which denied them the benefit of the revised scale from 01.01.1996.

Similar reliefs had been granted to employees in the Income Tax Department (CBDT) and other Central Excise zones by various Benches of the Tribunal and upheld by the Supreme Court.

1. Whether the revised pay scales recommended by the 5th CPC are to be granted notionally with effect from 01.01.1996 or from the date of the Office Memorandum, i.e., 21.04.2004.

2. Whether the claim is barred by limitation and the doctrine of "fence-sitters" under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

3. Whether the judicial precedents granting this relief operate in rem or in personam.

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle of parity under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that similarly situated persons must be treated equally.

It relied on State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, which mandates that service jurisprudence requires benefits granted to one set of employees to be extended to all similarly placed persons.

The court further applied the doctrine from K.L. Shephard v. Union of India, holding that there is no justification to penalize employees for not having litigated earlier.

Regarding limitation, it followed the Delhi High Court's view in W.P.(C) No. 15760/2023, holding that pay fixation constitutes a recurring cause of action and technical delays should not defeat substantive justice in such cases.

The Tribunal observed that a Special Anomaly Committee (SAC) had already recommended granting the upgraded pay scales notionally from 01.01.1996 for CBDT employees, a decision accepted by the Government.

Since both CBDT and CBIC function under the common Department of Revenue, the Tribunal held that separate committees or different effective dates were unnecessary and discriminatory.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' "fence-sitter" argument, noting that once the issue of pay scale parity was settled by the Supreme Court in similar matters, the respondents—as a model employer—should have extended the benefits to all eligible employees suo motu.

It determined that the previous judgments were judgments in rem because they addressed a general policy anomaly affecting a whole class of employees.

It held that the applicants are entitled to the revised pay scales of Rs. 6500–10500 (Inspectors) and Rs. 7500–12000 (Superintendents) on a notional basis from 01.01.1996 and on an actual monetary basis from 21.04.2004.

The respondents were directed to re-fix the pay and pensionary benefits and complete the exercise within two months.

No order as to costs was made.