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

The 42 applicants, serving or retired officers of the Central Excise, Customs and Central Tax departments, challenged the communication dated 25 July 2023 issued by the Ministry of Finance and the consequential communication dated 4 September 2023, whereby the benefit of upgraded pay scales under the Office Memorandum dated 21 April 2004 was not extended from the date claimed by them.

They sought a direction that the revised pay scales be given effect from 1 January 1996, the date of implementation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission recommendations, together with consequential arrears and interest.

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.

It also relied on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in W.P. No. 32729/2025, A. Panduranga Naik & Others v. Union of India & Others, decided on 22 July 2026, which granted arrears from 21 April 2004 instead of limiting them to three years preceding the filing of the Original Applications.

Both parties consented to disposal of the OA on the same terms.

Whether the applicants were entitled to the upgraded pay scales granted under the Office Memorandum dated 21 April 2004 with notional effect from 1 January 1996 and actual effect from 21 April 2004.

Whether the applicants were entitled to consequential benefits and arrears from 21 April 2004, rather than only for a period of three years preceding the filing of the OA.

Whether the communications dated 25 July 2023 and 4 September 2023, insofar as they denied or restricted the applicants’ entitlement, were liable to be set aside.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which permits an aggrieved government employee to approach the Tribunal for redressal of service-related grievances.

It applied the Office Memorandum dated 21 April 2004, which granted upgraded pay scales, and held that the benefit was to operate notionally from 1 January 1996 and actually from 21 April 2004.

The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions in OAs Nos. 94/2024, 265/2024, 410/2024, 411/2024 and 663/2024, and the Karnataka High Court’s decision in A. Panduranga Naik & Others v. Union of India & Others, W.P. No. 32729/2025 and connected matters, which recognised entitlement to arrears from 21 April 2004.

The governing principle was that similarly situated employees should receive the same benefit under the applicable pay-revision scheme, including the consequential monetary benefits flowing from the revised pay fixation.

The Tribunal found that the controversy was no longer res integra because the entitlement to the upgraded pay scales had already been settled in the earlier Tribunal decisions.

It therefore adopted the established position that the revised pay was to be reckoned notionally from 1 January 1996 but implemented financially from 21 April 2004, the date of the relevant Office Memorandum.

In light of the Karnataka High Court’s decision, the Tribunal rejected any restriction of arrears to three years before the filing of the OA and held that the applicants were entitled to arrears and consequential benefits from 21 April 2004.

Since counsel for both sides had no objection to disposal on those terms, the Tribunal set aside the impugned communication and directed implementation of the settled entitlement.

The communication dated 25 July 2023 was set aside, and the respondents were directed to extend the upgraded pay scales under the Office Memorandum dated 21 April 2004 with notional effect from 1 January 1996.

The applicants were held entitled to the actual benefits of the revised pay from 21 April 2004, together with arrears and consequential benefits from that date.

Compliance was directed within 12 weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

No order was made as to costs.