Upgraded pay scales apply notionally from 01.01.1996 and actually from 21.04.2004 for similarly situated employees.

The applicant joined the Central Excise & Customs as an Inspector in 1982, was promoted to Superintendent in 2001, and retired as Assistant Commissioner in 2019

Following the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC), the pay scales for Inspectors and Superintendents were revised to Rs. 6500–10500 and Rs. 7500–12000, respectively.

However, via Office Memoranda dated 21.04.2004 and 11.05.2004, the respondents made these revised scales effective from 21.04.2004 instead of 01.01.1996

The applicant challenged these OMs, seeking retrospective notional fixation from 01.01.1996 based on parity with other departments (CBDT) and various judicial precedents

The respondents contested the application on grounds of limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and argued that the applicant was a "fence-sitter" who approached the court belatedly

1. Whether the claim is barred by limitation and laches or if pay fixation constitutes a recurring cause of action

2. Whether the judicial precedents granting the 01.01.1996 effective date operate in rem or in personam

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to notional pay fixation from 01.01.1996 and actual monetary benefits from 21.04.2004

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle of parity under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, ensuring similarly situated employees are treated equally

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding limitation, but interpreted it alongside the doctrine of "recurring cause of action" in matters of pay fixation

The Tribunal further applied the rule established in State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, which postulates that service jurisprudence requires uniform treatment for all similarly situated persons

It also referenced the findings of the Special Anomaly Committee and the judgment of the Telangana High Court in W.P. No. 10490/2024, which held that recommendations for one board (CBDT) under the Department of Revenue must apply to the other (CBIC)

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' plea of limitation, noting that pay fixation is a recurring cause of action and that the delay was explained by the fact that the Special Anomaly Committee only submitted its report in September 2023

On the merits, the Tribunal observed that the CBDT and CBIC both function under the Department of Revenue; therefore, granting retrospective benefits to CBDT employees while denying them to CBIC employees was discriminatory

The Tribunal held that previous judgments on this specific pay scale issue—affirmed by the Supreme Court—were judgments in rem because they addressed a general service condition applicable to an entire class of employees

Consequently, the respondent department cannot unilaterally treat binding judicial decisions as in personam to exclude similarly situated employees who did not litigate earlier

It held that the applicant is entitled to notional pay fixation in the grades of Inspector and Superintendent effective from 01.01.1996

The respondents were directed to refix the applicant's pay and pensionary benefits accordingly, with actual monetary arrears payable from 21.04.2004, to be completed within two months

No order as to costs was made