Similarly situated employees must receive equivalent revised pay-scale benefits upon verification of eligibility.

The applicant, an Assistant Commissioner in the Haldia CGST & CX Commissionerate, sought revision and fixation of pay in the scales of ₹6,500–10,500 and ₹7,500–12,000 with effect from 01.01.1996, together with consequential arrears and other benefits under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

His claim was founded on a Government circular dated 11.05.2004 revising the pay scale of Central Excise Superintendents from ₹6,500–10,500 to ₹7,500–12,000 with effect from 21.04.2004, and on orders of the CAT Hyderabad Bench, the Telangana High Court, and the Supreme Court granting corresponding benefits to similarly situated Inspectors and Superintendents.

The applicant also relied on orders of the Kolkata Bench, including the order dated 03.11.2025 in O.A. No. 350/1154/2025, directing extension of the benefits on a notional basis from 01.01.1996 and an actual basis from 21.04.2004, subject to verification.

Although the applicant had submitted a representation dated 11.08.2025, it had not been considered.

The respondents had no objection to such consideration, subject to verification.

1. Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider the applicant’s pending representation regarding revision and fixation of pay in light of the judicial decisions relied upon by him.

2. Whether, upon verification that the applicant was similarly situated with the employees covered by those decisions, he should receive the corresponding pay-fixation and consequential benefits.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which an aggrieved government employee may approach the Tribunal for redressal of service-related grievances.

It relied on the principle of equal treatment of similarly situated employees and on the binding or persuasive effect of the prior judicial decisions concerning revised pay scales for Inspectors and Superintendents of the Central Tax and Customs Department, including the CAT Hyderabad order dated 09.01.2024, its affirmation by the Telangana High Court on 09.08.2024, and the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 28.02.2025 in SLP (Civil) No. 59005 of 2024.

The Tribunal also relied on the Kolkata Bench’s prior directions requiring extension of the same benefits to similarly situated employees, subject to verification of their service particulars.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the applicant’s substantive entitlement finally.

Since the applicant’s representation remained pending and the respondents consented to its consideration, the Tribunal directed the competent authority to examine the claim in light of the earlier decisions and to determine, through verification, whether the applicant was similarly situated with the beneficiaries of those judgments.

The Tribunal considered that, if such similarity was established, the applicant should not be denied the benefit merely because he had not previously approached the Tribunal, particularly when comparable orders had already been passed in favour of similarly placed employees.

The authority was therefore required to issue a reasoned and speaking order rather than summarily reject or ignore the representation.

Respondent No. 3 or another competent authority was directed to consider the applicant’s representation dated 11.08.2025, treating the O.A. as part of that representation, and to communicate a reasoned and speaking decision within six weeks of receiving a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

If, after verification, the applicant was found similarly situated with the employees covered by the cited judgments and orders, the respondents were directed to grant him the corresponding benefits within two weeks thereafter.