Upgraded pay from 1 January 1996 must be granted where facts mirror binding precedent.

The applicant, an Inspector/Superintendent under the Department of Revenue, challenged the respondents’ decision dated 28 August 2025 granting him the upgraded pay scale of ₹6,500–10,500 with effect from 21 April 2004, instead of 1 January 1996. He sought notional revision of pay from 1 January 1996, consequential arrears and other emoluments with interest, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The applicant relied on the decision of the CAT, Hyderabad Bench in O.A. No. 1089/2019 and connected matters, which directed grant of the enhanced pay scale to similarly placed Inspectors/Superintendents from 1 January 1996.

The Union of India’s challenge to that decision before the Telangana High Court was dismissed on 9 August 2024. The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the Union’s SLP (Civil) Diary No. 59005/2024 on 28 February 2025.

The applicant also relied on the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order in Union of India v. Sarad Kumar Tripathi , which declined to interfere with a similar direction issued by the CAT, Jabalpur Bench.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to the upgraded pay scale of ₹6,500–10,500 notionally with effect from 1 January 1996, instead of 21 April 2004, on the basis of the decisions concerning similarly situated Inspectors/Superintendents under the Department of Revenue?

2. Whether the respondents were required to extend the same benefit to the applicant if his case and the controversy were identical to those decided by the CAT, Hyderabad Bench and upheld by the Telangana High Court and the Supreme Court?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the principle of consistency and equal treatment in service matters by relying on the CAT, Hyderabad Bench’s order dated 9 January 2024, the Telangana High Court’s judgment dated 9 August 2024 in Union of India v. R. Siva Shankara Sastry , and the dismissal of the Union’s SLP by the Supreme Court on 28 February 2025.

Those decisions established that, where the factual and legal controversy was identical, Inspectors/Superintendents under the Department of Revenue could be granted the revised/upgraded pay scale notionally from 1 January 1996 rather than 21 April 2004.

The Tribunal also relied on the analogous approach adopted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Union of India v. Sarad Kumar Tripathi .

The Tribunal noted that the applicant claimed the same relief as that granted in the Hyderabad proceedings and that the Telangana High Court’s decision had been affirmed against challenge by dismissal of the Union’s SLP.

However, rather than conclusively determining the applicant’s entitlement on the existing record, it directed the respondents to verify whether the applicant’s facts and the controversy were identical to those considered in the earlier decisions.

If such identity was established, the respondents were required to grant relief to the applicant on similar terms.

Thus, the Tribunal applied the binding effect and consistency of the earlier judicial determinations conditionally, subject to factual verification by the respondents.

If so, the respondents were directed to grant the applicant the corresponding benefit of the upgraded pay scale from 1 January 1996, on similar terms, within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The Tribunal did not itself finally quantify or direct payment of arrears, interest or other consequential benefits independent of that verification.

No order as to costs was made, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of.