Similarly situated retirees are entitled to upgraded pay scales notionally from 1996, with arrears from 2004.

The applicants, retired Income Tax Department officers, sought the benefit of the upgraded pay scales under the Office Memorandum dated 21 April 2004, notionally from 1 January 1996 and actually from 21 April 2004, together with arrears and consequential revision of retirement benefits.

They relied on earlier Tribunal decisions granting the same benefit and on the Karnataka High Court’s decision in W.P. No. 32729/2025, which set aside a restriction limiting arrears to three years before filing the applications.

The respondents argued that the applicants were not within the category covered by the Office Memorandum dated 27 June 2025 and had not first submitted representations; they also stated that the matter was under consideration by the competent authority.

Whether the applicants, as officers similarly situated to those who had already received the upgraded pay-scale benefit, were entitled to notional fixation from 1 January 1996 and actual benefits from 21 April 2004.

Whether the applicants were entitled to arrears from 21 April 2004 and consequential revision of retirement benefits, rather than arrears restricted to three years before filing.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to adjudicate the application.

The Tribunal applied the equality principle under Article 14 of the Constitution: similarly situated employees should be treated alike, and a benefit granted to one group cannot be denied to another identically situated group merely because the latter approached the Tribunal or lacked association membership.

It relied on State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747, and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, as supporting that principle.

It also followed the earlier Principal Bench decisions and the Karnataka High Court’s ruling that the arrears restriction should not apply in these circumstances.

The Tribunal treated the applicants as identically situated to employees who had received the upgraded pay-scale benefits under the 21 April 2004 Office Memorandum.

Applying the equality principle and the prior decisions, it concluded that neither the respondents’ reliance on the 27 June 2025 Office Memorandum nor the absence of prior representations justified denying parity.

It further followed the Karnataka High Court’s decision setting aside the limitation of arrears to three years before filing, and therefore allowed arrears from 21 April 2004.

It directed compliance within 12 weeks of receipt of the certified order, disposed of the application accordingly, and made no order as to costs.