Similarly situated Inspectors and Superintendents are entitled to notional pay fixation from 1 January 1996, with monetary benefits from 21 April 2004.

The applicants were Inspectors/Superintendents in the Central Excise and Customs Departments, or family pensioners of deceased employees who had held those posts.

Prior to 1 January 1996, Inspectors/Preventive Officers/Examiners were in the pay scale of ₹1,640–2,900 and Superintendents/Appraisers in ₹2,000–3,500.

Pursuant to the Fifth Central Pay Commission, the revised scales of ₹6,500–10,500 for Inspectors and ₹7,500–12,000 for Superintendents were extended to the applicants only with effect from 21 April 2004, rather than 1 January 1996.

The applicants sought notional fixation from 1 January 1996 and consequential monetary and pensionary benefits.

They relied upon decisions of the Mumbai, Kolkata, Hyderabad and Jaipur Benches of the Tribunal, judgments of various High Courts, and the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the Hyderabad Bench’s decision in O.A. No. 1089/2019 and batch.

The respondents opposed the applications by relying on their reply in O.A. No. 1351/2024.

Whether the applicants, being similarly situated Inspectors/Superintendents of the Central Excise and Customs Departments, were entitled to notional fixation of the revised pay scales with effect from 1 January 1996

Whether the applicants were entitled to consequential actual monetary benefits from 1 January 1996, or only from 21 April 2004

Whether the benefits granted in prior proceedings could be extended to the applicants who were not parties to those proceedings, in view of the principle of equal treatment of similarly situated employees

The Tribunal applied the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997, under which the revised pay scales were required to be given effect from the relevant date of implementation of the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations.

It relied on the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, holding that similarly situated employees should not be treated differently merely because only some had approached the courts.

In State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747, the Supreme Court held that service jurisprudence requires similarly situated persons to be treated alike.

The Tribunal also relied on K.L. Shephard v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 431, as reaffirmed in Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 1943/2022, for the proposition that non-litigating employees should not be denied the same benefit granted to successful litigants.

The Hyderabad Bench’s direction granting notional benefit from 1 January 1996 and actual monetary benefits from 21 April 2004, affirmed by the Telangana High Court and the Supreme Court, was treated as the controlling precedent.

The Tribunal found that the applicants belonged to the same class of employees affected by the same pay anomaly and the same governmental orders as the employees who had secured relief in earlier proceedings.

Although the earlier judgments and the Special Anomaly Committee’s recommendation had technically arisen in proceedings involving particular employees, denying the same benefit to the present applicants would violate Article 14 and the settled principle that similarly situated employees must receive uniform treatment.

The Tribunal noted that the Special Anomaly Committee had recommended notional revision from 1 January 1996 and actual implementation from 21 April 2004, and that this approach had attained finality through the Hyderabad litigation.

Accordingly, the applicants were entitled to parity, but the Tribunal confined actual monetary benefits to 21 April 2004, consistently with the binding Hyderabad Bench decision, while granting notional fixation from 1 January 1996.

The impugned orders were set aside, and the respondents were directed to refix the applicants’ pay under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997, in the grades of Inspector and Superintendent notionally with effect from 1 January 1996.

Consequential monetary benefits, including pensionary benefits, were to be granted on an actual basis from 21 April 2004.

The exercise was directed to be completed within two months from receipt of the order.

No order as to costs was made.