Upgraded pay scales apply notionally from 01.01.1996 to all similarly situated employees as judgments *in rem*.

The applicant, a retired Assistant Commissioner of Customs, joined the department as an Inspector in 1980 and retired on March 31, 2015

Following the implementation of the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC) effective January 1, 1996, an anomaly in pay scales for Inspectors and Superintendents was recognized by the Government.

Consequently, the Ministry of Finance issued an Office Memorandum (OM) dated April 21, 2004, upgrading these scales; however, the revision was granted prospective effect from the date of the OM rather than the 5th CPC's operational date of January 1, 1996

The applicant submitted a representation on June 19, 2025, seeking retrospective notional fixation from 1996 and actual arrears from 2004, citing parity with other employees who received such benefits through various Tribunal and High Court orders

The respondents rejected this on August 7, 2025, claiming a need for clarification from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC)

The applicant then approached the Tribunal, asserting that pay fixation constitutes a continuing cause of action

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the notional fixation of revised pay scales with effect from January 1, 1996, and actual monetary benefits from April 21, 2004, on par with similarly situated employees

2. Whether the Original Application (OA) is barred by limitation and laches under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

3. Whether the judicial precedents granting such benefits operate in rem (applicable to all similarly situated persons) or in personam (restricted to the litigants)

Article 14 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that treating similarly situated persons dissimilarly is unconstitutional

The principle established in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India, holding that pay fixation constitutes a "recurring and continuing" cause of action, thus mitigating the bar of limitation

The doctrine from State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, which postulates that service jurisprudence requires all similarly situated persons to be treated equally, regardless of whether they were parties to the original litigation (judgment in rem)

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding the admission of applications within prescribed periods

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' contention that the claim was stale or that the applicant was a "fence-sitter."

It reasoned that because the Special Anomaly Committee (constituted via Calcutta High Court directions) only finalized its recommendations for the Department of Revenue in September 2023, the cause of action was refreshed

The court observed that the Department of Revenue had already implemented retrospective benefits for the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and various other branches of CBIC following the Hyderabad Bench’s decision in OA 1089/2019 (affirmed by the Supreme Court)

The Tribunal noted that forcing individual employees to litigate for benefits already recognized by superior courts as in rem is arbitrary and a waste of judicial time

It held that since the anomaly dated back to the 5th CPC’s inception, the remedy must logically relate back to January 1, 1996, to ensure constitutional parity

It held that the applicant is entitled to the revised pay scales on a notional basis from January 1, 1996, and on an actual monetary basis from April 21, 2004

The respondents were directed to re-fix the applicant's pay in the grades of Inspector and Superintendent accordingly and pay all consequential arrears, including revised pensionary benefits, within two months of receiving the order

No costs were awarded