Upgraded pay scales apply notionally from 01.01.1996 to ensure parity for similarly situated employees.

The applicant joined as an Inspector in Central Excise Customs in 1980, was promoted to Superintendent in 1996, and retired as Assistant Director in 2016.

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

However, the government made these scales effective from 21.04.2004 instead of 01.01.1996 (the implementation date of the 5th CPC).

Following litigation by similarly situated employees in other Benches (Mumbai, Kolkata, and Hyderabad), a Special Anomaly Committee recommended notional fixation from 01.01.1996, which was implemented by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and later affirmed for Central Board of Indirect Taxes Customs (CBIC) employees by the Telangana High Court and the Supreme Court.

The applicant filed this OA seeking parity, while the respondents argued the claim was barred by limitation and that the applicant was a "fence-sitter".

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to notional pay fixation from 01.01.1996 and actual monetary benefits from 21.04.2004 based on parity with similarly situated employees.

2. Whether the Original Application is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, or by the doctrine of laches.

3. Whether the previous judicial pronouncements on this subject operate as judgments in rem or in personam.

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

It relied on State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, which established that service jurisprudence requires benefits granted to one set of employees to be extended to all others similarly placed.

The court also invoked K.L. Shephard Others v. Union of India, asserting that there is no justification to penalize employees for not having litigated earlier.

Regarding limitation, the court applied the doctrine that pay fixation constitutes a recurring cause of action.

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, does not bar claims where the delay is explained by the timeline of administrative committee recommendations.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' plea of limitation, observing that the Special Anomaly Committee—constituted under the directions of the Kolkata High Court—only submitted its report on 22.09.2023, thus providing a fresh basis for the claim.

The Tribunal held that since the CBDT and CBIC both function under the Department of Revenue, the recommendations of the Special Anomaly Committee must be applied uniformly to the entire Department to avoid discrimination.

It determined that the previous judgments of the Hyderabad and Mumbai Benches, affirmed by High Courts and the Supreme Court, were judgments in rem.

The Tribunal reasoned that the respondent department cannot unilaterally reinterpret binding judicial decisions as being in personam to deny benefits to non-litigants, as such action is arbitrary and contrary to settled law.

It further noted that restricting the benefit to a specific group of litigants while denying it to the applicant violated the principles of equality and fair treatment.

It held that the applicant is entitled to the revised pay scale notionally from 01.01.1996 and on an actual monetary basis from 21.04.2004.

The respondents were directed to refix the applicant’s pay in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997, and grant all consequential benefits, including pensionary adjustments, within two months from the receipt of the order.

No order was made as to costs.