Upgraded pay scales apply notionally from Pay Commission implementation to all similarly situated employees under judgments in rem.

The applicant, a retired Superintendent of Central Excise, challenged a letter dated August 29, 2023, which denied the retrospective application of upgraded pay scales.

The applicant sought a revised pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 for his service as an Inspector and Rs. 7500-12000 as a Superintendent, effective from January 1, 1996 (the date the 5th Central Pay Commission became operational), instead of April 21, 2004, as granted by the Government.

The applicant argued that the denial of arrears for the period between 1996 and 2004 was discriminatory, citing that similarly situated employees in the Income Tax Department and other Central Excise zones had received these benefits following various High Court and Supreme Court rulings.

The respondents contested the claim on grounds of limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and argued that the applicant was a "fence-sitter" who approached the Tribunal belatedly.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to notional fixation of the upgraded pay scale from January 1, 1996, and actual monetary benefits from April 21, 2004, based on parity with similarly situated employees.

2. Whether the Original Application is barred by the doctrine of limitation and laches due to the time elapsed since the 1996/2004 cause of action.

3. Whether the judicial precedents granting this relief operate in rem or are confined in personam to the specific litigants in earlier cases.

Article 14 of the Constitution of India regarding the principle of equality and fair treatment.

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, concerning limitation, but mitigated its rigour using the principle that pay fixation constitutes a recurring cause of action.

The court followed the precedent in State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha (2006), which postulates that service jurisprudence requires similarly situated persons to be treated similarly.

The court further applied the "judgment in rem" doctrine from Lt. Col Suprita Chandel v. Union of India (2024), asserting that model employers should extend benefits to all eligible employees without forcing individual litigation.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' plea of limitation, noting that while the policy originated in 2004, the Special Anomaly Committee (constituted via Kolkata High Court directions) only finalized its recommendations in September 2023.

The Tribunal observed that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) both function under the Department of Revenue; therefore, benefits extended to Income Tax Inspectors must be extended to Central Excise Inspectors to maintain parity.

The court highlighted that the Hyderabad Bench’s decision in OA 1089/2019, which granted identical relief, had been affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2024 and attained finality.

The Tribunal reasoned that restricting benefits only to those who litigated earlier would be arbitrary and unsustainable, as the underlying legal issue regarding the 5th CPC implementation date was now res integra and settled in rem.

The respondents were directed to refix the applicant's pay in the grades of Inspector and Superintendent notionally effective from January 1, 1996, and to grant actual monetary arrears from April 21, 2004.

This direction includes the revision of pensionary benefits and post-retirement dues. The respondents were ordered to complete this exercise within two months of receiving the order.

No order was made as to costs.