Upgraded pay scales apply notionally from January 1, 1996, for all similarly situated employees.

The applicant, a retired Superintendent of Central Excise, filed this Original Application (OA) challenging the respondents' refusal to grant him upgraded pay scales (Rs. 6500-10500 for Inspectors and Rs. 7500-12000 for Superintendents) retrospectively from 01.01.1996, the date the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC) became operational

While the respondents eventually granted the upgraded scales, they limited the actual financial benefits to 21.04.2004

The applicant relied on several precedents, specifically from the Hyderabad and Kolkata Benches and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which granted notional fixation from 1996 to similarly situated employees

The respondents opposed the OA on grounds of limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, arguing the applicant was a "fence-sitter" who approached the Tribunal nearly two decades after the cause of action arose

1. Whether the application is barred by limitation and laches given the significant delay in seeking relief

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to notional pay fixation from 01.01.1996 and actual monetary benefits from 21.04.2004 based on the principles of parity and earlier judicial pronouncements

3. Whether the judgments granting such benefits to other employees are judgments in rem (applicable to all similarly situated persons) or in personam (restricted to the litigants)

The court primarily applied the principle of parity under Article 14 of the Constitution, asserting that similarly situated employees must be treated equally regardless of whether they litigated

It relied on State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha [(2006) 2 SCC 747], which established that service jurisprudence requires uniform treatment of similarly situated persons

On the issue of limitation, the court applied the doctrine that pay fixation constitutes a "recurring cause of action," as supported by the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 15760/2023

It further observed that once a Special Anomaly Committee (SAC) recommendation is implemented for one branch of the Department of Revenue (CBDT), it must logically extend to the other (CBIC)

The Tribunal dismissed the respondents' objection regarding limitation, holding that the issue of pay fixation is a continuous grievance and noting that the finality of the Special Anomaly Committee's recommendations was only reached in late 2023

The court reasoned that the respondents, as a "model employer," should have implemented the orders of the Supreme Court for all eligible employees without forcing each individual to litigate

The Tribunal found that the applicant was exactly similarly situated to those in OA No. 1089/2019 (Hyderabad Bench), a case that attained finality after Supreme Court dismissal of the department’s appeal

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the previous judicial decisions were judgments in rem and that denying the applicant the same benefits would be arbitrary and discriminatory

The respondents were directed to refix the applicant’s pay in the grades of Inspector and Superintendent notionally with effect from 01.01.1996 and to grant actual monetary benefits, including revised pensionary arrears, from 21.04.2004

The respondents were ordered to complete this exercise within two months of receiving the order

No costs were awarded