Upgraded pay scales apply notionally from 1 January 1996 and actually from 21 April 2004.

The applicant, Shri P.H. Hemanth Kumar, working as a Recovery Officer in the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Karnataka, challenged the respondents’ Office Memoranda dated 21 April 2004 and 11 May 2004, insofar as they granted the benefit of upgraded pay scales notionally from 1 January 1996 but restricted actual monetary benefits to a later date.

He also challenged the subsequent departmental communications dated 25 July 2023 and 1 May 2024 rejecting his claim for fixation of pay and arrears from 1 January 1996.

The Tribunal noted that the issue had already been considered in connected Original Applications, including OAs Nos. 94/2024, 265/2024, 410/2024, 411/2024 and 663/2024.

The parties agreed that the present application could be disposed of on the same terms.

Whether the applicant was entitled to the benefit of the upgraded/revised pay scales notionally with effect from 1 January 1996, notwithstanding the respondents’ restriction of the effective date of the Office Memorandum dated 21 April 2004.

Whether the applicant was entitled to actual monetary benefits, arrears and consequential benefits from 21 April 2004, rather than being restricted to arrears for only three years preceding the filing of the Original Application.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the terms and effect of the Office Memorandum dated 21 April 2004, under which the upgraded pay scales were to be extended notionally from 1 January 1996.

The Tribunal followed its earlier orders in OAs Nos. 94/2024, 265/2024, 410/2024, 411/2024 and 663/2024 concerning notional pay fixation from 1 January 1996 and actual benefits from 21 April 2004.

It further applied the Karnataka High Court’s decision in A. Panduranga Naik and Others v. Union of India and Others, W.P. No. 32729/2025 and connected matters, which held that actual arrears could not be restricted to three years prior to the filing of the Original Applications and granted arrears from 21 April 2004.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s claim was covered by its prior decisions and the binding decision of the Karnataka High Court.

Since the upgraded pay scales had already been granted under the Office Memorandum dated 21 April 2004, the only question was the proper temporal extent of the benefit.

Consistent with the earlier Tribunal orders, the benefit was required to operate notionally from 1 January 1996.

Following the High Court’s ruling, the restriction of actual arrears to a shorter period was impermissible; the applicant was therefore entitled to actual monetary benefits and consequential arrears from 21 April 2004.

The consent of both parties to disposal on the same terms further supported applying the established position to the applicant.

The respondents were directed to extend the upgraded pay scales to the applicant notionally with effect from 1 January 1996.

The effective-date restriction in the Office Memorandum dated 21 April 2004 was modified, and the applicant was held entitled to the benefits flowing from that memorandum notionally from 1 January 1996 and actually from 21 April 2004.

He was also granted arrears and consequential benefits from 21 April 2004, with liberty to seek further relief if the respondents granted benefits from 1 January 1996 to similarly situated employees.

Compliance was directed within twelve weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order. No order was made as to costs.