Similarly situated officers are entitled to notional pay-scale upgradation from 1 January 1996 and actual benefits from 21 April 2004.

The applicants, retired Assistant Commissioners, challenged the respondents’ decision to extend the upgraded pay scales for Inspectors and Superintendents from 21 April 2004 rather than notionally from 1 January 1996.

They sought quashing of the rejection communications and grant of the scales from 1 January 1996 on a notional basis, with consequential benefits.

They relied on decisions concerning similarly placed employees, including the CAT Hyderabad Bench’s order in O.A. No. 1089/2019 and connected matters, which was upheld by the Telangana High Court and followed by dismissal of the Union’s SLP.

The respondents opposed the claim, contending that relief granted in other cases was in personam and not available to the applicants.

1. Whether the applicants, as similarly placed Inspectors/Superintendents, were entitled to the upgraded pay scales notionally from 1 January 1996 rather than only from 21 April 2004

2. Whether the respondents could deny the benefit on the ground that earlier judgments granting it were in personam

The Tribunal proceeded under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and considered the applicants’ claims of unequal treatment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

It applied the principle that similarly situated employees should ordinarily receive equal treatment, relying on Amit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise, (1975) 4 SCC 714, concerning extending a judicially recognised benefit to others in like circumstances; Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India, (1985) 2 SCC 648, on avoiding disadvantage to similarly situated persons who did not approach the Court; and State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747, as referred to in Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’ Assn. (Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P., (2006) 10 SCC 346, on equal treatment of similarly situated employees.

The Tribunal also relied on the prior CAT Hyderabad decision, upheld by the Telangana High Court and followed by dismissal of the SLP, as well as its own order in O.A. No. 411/2025.

The Tribunal found that the applicants were similarly placed employees and that the respondents had extended the benefit of notional upgradation from 1 January 1996, with actual effect from 21 April 2004, to employees who had obtained earlier orders.

In light of the prior decisions and the principle of equal treatment, it held that the benefit could not be denied to the applicants merely because those judgments had been treated as in personam. The challenged communications were therefore not sustainable.

The respondents were directed to communicate their decision to the applicants; there was no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.