Upgraded pay scales apply notionally from 1 January 1996, with actual arrears payable from 21 April 2004.

The applicants, serving as Assistant Commissioners and Superintendents in various Central Tax and related formations, challenged the Office Memoranda dated 21 April 2004 and 11 May 2004 insofar as they limited the actual monetary benefits of upgraded pay scales to 21 April 2004.

They claimed fixation of pay in the revised scales—₹6,500–10,500 for Inspectors and ₹7,500–12,000 for Superintendents—with effect from 1 January 1996 on an actual basis, together with arrears and consequential benefits.

The applicants also challenged departmental orders rejecting their claims for retrospective pay fixation and arrears.

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

Whether the applicants were entitled to the benefit of the upgraded pay scales notionally with effect from 1 January 1996 and actually from 21 April 2004, pursuant to the Office Memorandum dated 21 April 2004?

Whether the applicants were entitled to 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, which permits an aggrieved government servant to seek redressal of service-related grievances before the Tribunal.

It applied the benefit of the upgraded pay scales granted under the Department of Expenditure’s Office Memorandum dated 21 April 2004, while distinguishing between notional retrospective fixation and actual monetary payment.

The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions in OAs Nos. 94/2024, 265/2024, 410/2024, 411/2024 and 663/2024 concerning implementation of the revised pay scales.

It also followed the Karnataka High Court’s decision in Shri A. Panduranga Naik v. Union of India, W.P. No. 32729/2025 and connected matters, which held that the restriction of arrears to three years prior to the filing of the OAs could not be sustained and directed payment of arrears from 21 April 2004.

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

Applying the distinction between notional fixation and actual payment, it held that the upgraded pay scales were to be given notionally from 1 January 1996, but the resulting monetary benefits were payable from 21 April 2004, the date of the relevant Office Memorandum.

In light of the High Court’s ruling, the respondents could not restrict arrears to a period of three years before the filing of the OAs.

The applicants were therefore entitled to arrears and consequential benefits from 21 April 2004, subject to the liberty granted by the Tribunal regarding any later extension of benefits to similarly situated employees.

The respondents were directed to extend the upgraded pay scales to the applicants notionally from 1 January 1996 and actually from 21 April 2004.

The relevant Office Memorandum was modified to that extent.

The applicants were held entitled to arrears and consequential benefits from 21 April 2004, and the respondents were directed to comply within twelve weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

No order was made as to costs.