Upgraded pay scales apply notionally from 01.01.1996 to similarly situated employees as judicial mandates operate in rem.

The applicant, a retired Assistant Director of the Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), joined as an Inspector in 1983 and was promoted to Superintendent in 2002

Following the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC), the pay scales for Inspectors and Superintendents were revised effective 01.01.1996.

Subsequently, the Government acknowledged an anomaly and further upgraded these scales via Office Memorandum (OM) dated 21.04.2004

However, the respondents implemented this upgrade prospectively from the date of the OM (21.04.2004) rather than retrospectively from the 5th CPC’s effective date (01.01.1996)

The applicant sought retrospective notional fixation from 01.01.1996 and actual arrears, citing various judgments where similarly situated employees in the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) were granted such relief

The respondents contested the application on grounds of limitation, delay, and the "fence-sitter" doctrine

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the upgraded pay scale notionally from 01.01.1996 and actually from 21.04.2004 based on the 5th CPC recommendations and subsequent rectification of anomalies

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

3. Whether the judicial precedents granting similar relief operate in rem, requiring the department to extend benefits to all similarly situated employees without fresh litigation

The Tribunal relied on the principle of parity under Article 14 of the Constitution, asserting that similarly situated employees must be treated equally

It applied the rule from M.R. Gupta v. Union of India, which establishes that pay fixation constitutes a "recurring and continuing" cause of action, thus mitigating limitation bars

Regarding service jurisprudence, the court cited State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, holding that benefits granted to one set of employees should be extended to others similarly placed to avoid disparate treatment

Furthermore, it referenced K.L. Shephard v. Union of India, which stipulates that employees should not be penalized for failing to litigate if they are otherwise entitled to the same benefits as successful litigants

The Tribunal observed that the core dispute regarding the effective date of the 5th CPC pay upgrade had already attained finality through multiple Benches of the Tribunal, High Courts, and the Supreme Court

The court noted that a Special Anomaly Committee had already recommended retrospective notional fixation for CBDT employees, and since both CBDT and CBIC fall under the Department of Revenue, separate committees were unnecessary

Rejecting the respondents' plea of limitation and the "fence-sitter" argument, the Tribunal held that once the government accepts a recommendation for pay enhancement, it cannot arbitrarily restrict the effective date

The Tribunal clarified that the previous judgments were judgments in rem and not in personam, meaning the department, as a model employer, should have extended the benefits to all eligible staff suomotu

The Tribunal reconciled the delay by adopting the middle path established in OA No. 1089/2019 (Hyderabad Bench): granting notional fixation from 1996 to maintain seniority and pay structure, but restricting actual monetary arrears to 2004 onwards

The respondents were directed to refix the applicant’s pay in the grades of Inspector and Superintendent on a notional basis effective from 01.01.1996 and on an actual monetary basis from 21.04.2004. This direction includes the payment of consequential arrears and the revision of pensionary benefits.

The respondents were ordered to complete this exercise within two months from the date of receipt of the order. No costs were awarded.