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

The 24 applicants, serving as or retired from the posts of Inspectors and Superintendents in the Central Excise and Customs Department (CBIC), sought the retrospective application of revised pay scales under the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC).

While the 5th CPC recommendations were generally effective from 01.01.1996, the government implemented the upgraded scales for Inspectors (Rs. 6500–10500) and Superintendents (Rs. 7500–12000) only from 21.04.2004 via Office Memoranda.

The applicants contended they were entitled to notional fixation from 01.01.1996 to maintain parity with similarly situated employees in the Income Tax Department (CBDT), who were granted this benefit following a Special Anomaly Committee recommendation accepted by the government in 2023.

The respondents opposed the OA on grounds of limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and argued that previous judicial orders were in personam.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to notional fixation of the upgraded pay scales with effect from 01.01.1996 and actual monetary benefits from 21.04.2004 based on the principle of parity.

2. Whether the claim is barred by limitation and the doctrine of "fence-sitters" due to the delay in approaching the Tribunal.

3. Whether the previous judgments granting similar relief by other Benches and High Courts operate in rem or are confined in personam to the litigants therein.

Article 14 of the Constitution regarding the right to equality and parity in service benefits.

The principle established in State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, which mandates that similarly situated persons must be treated similarly and that the benefit of a judgment should not be restricted only to those who approached the court.

Pay fixation constitutes a recurring cause of action.

Under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997, once the government accepts a Pay Commission recommendation, the benefits should logically flow from the date of the Commission's implementation.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' plea regarding limitation, noting that the issue of pay fixation is a continuous cause of action and that the applicants approached the Tribunal shortly after the Special Anomaly Committee’s recommendations were implemented for CBDT employees in late 2023.

The Bench observed that CBDT and CBIC both function under the Department of Revenue; therefore, denying CBIC employees the same retrospective notional fixation granted to CBDT employees was discriminatory.

The Tribunal further reasoned that several Benches (Hyderabad, Kolkata, Mumbai) and High Courts (Telangana, Delhi, Madras) had already adjudicated this issue in favor of the employees, and the CBIC had already implemented these orders for over 1,500 similarly situated persons.

The Tribunal held that the previous judicial pronouncements were judgments in rem, as they addressed a general policy anomaly affecting an entire class of officers.

The applicants are entitled to notional pay fixation in the upgraded scales from 01.01.1996 and actual monetary benefits (including arrears and pensionary adjustments) from 21.04.2004.

The respondents were directed to complete the re-fixation exercise and grant all consequential benefits within two months.

No order as to costs was made.