Upgraded pay scales apply notionally from the date of Pay Commission implementation for all similarly situated employees.

The applicant, a retired Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Excise, joined as a Preventive Officer in 1987

Following the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendations, pay scales for Inspectors/Preventive Officers and Superintendents were revised to Rs. 6,500–10,500 and Rs. 7,500–12,000, respectively.

However, the government implemented these revised scales effective from 21.04.2004 instead of 01.01.1996 (the effective date of the 5th CPC)

The applicant sought retrospective notional fixation from 01.01.1996, citing numerous decisions by various Benches of the Tribunal and High Courts that granted such relief to similarly situated employees in the CBDT and CBIC

The respondents opposed the OA on grounds of limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, characterizing the applicant as a "fence-sitter" and arguing that prior judgments were in personam

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to notional fixation of pay in the revised scales with effect from 01.01.1996 and actual monetary benefits from 21.04.2004

2. Whether the Original Application is barred by limitation and laches under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

3. Whether the judicial precedents granting retrospective pay fixation in this context operate as judgments in rem or are confined in personam to the original litigants

The court primarily applied the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997, regarding the implementation of the 5th CPC recommendations

It relied on the principle of parity under Article 14 of the Constitution, as elucidated in State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, which mandates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly regardless of whether they approached the court earlier

The Tribunal also considered Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, but balanced it against the doctrine of "recurring cause of action" in pay fixation matters and the "model employer" obligations established in K.L. Shephard v. Union of India and Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India

The Tribunal observed that a Special Anomaly Committee, constituted following directions from the Calcutta High Court, had already recommended granting the upgraded pay scales notionally from 01.01.1996 for CBDT employees

Since both CBDT and CBIC function under the Department of Revenue, the Tribunal held there was no justification for discriminatory treatment between the two boards

On the issue of delay, the Tribunal found that pay fixation constitutes a recurring cause of action and that the government, as a model employer, should extend benefits to all similarly situated employees once a principle is legally settled, rather than forcing each individual to litigate

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' contention that previous orders were in personam, ruling that judgments regarding service-wide pay anomalies are judgments in rem

It held that restricting the benefit to a limited group of litigants violated Article 14 of the Constitution

The respondents were directed to refix the applicant’s pay in the grades of Inspector and Superintendent on a notional basis effective from 01.01.1996, with actual monetary benefits and consequential pensionary benefits payable from 21.04.2004

The exercise must be completed within two months of receipt of the order