Upgraded pay scales for analogous posts must be implemented notionally from the Pay Commission’s effective date to ensure parity.

The applicants are serving or retired officers (Inspectors, Superintendents, and Commissioners) of the Central GST and Customs departments

Following the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC), disparities arose between the pay scales of these officers and analogous posts in other departments. A High Power Committee (HPC) recommended upgrading pay scales for Inspectors to Rs. 6500-10500 and Superintendents to Rs. 7500-12000

Although the 5th CPC was effective from 01.01.1996, the Government implemented these revised scales prospectively from 21.04.2004 via Office Memorandums (Annexures A4 and A5)

The applicants contended that similar cadres in the Railway Accounts, Narcotic Control Bureau, and Organised Accounts departments received these benefits notionally from 01.01.1996

Various judicial precedents from other CAT benches and High Courts, confirmed by the Supreme Court, had already granted notional benefits from 01.01.1996 to similarly placed employees

The applicants approached the Tribunal in 2025 seeking notional fixation from 1996 and arrears

1. Whether the Original Applications are barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act due to the delay in challenging orders from 2004

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to the revised pay scales on a notional basis from 01.01.1996 (implementation date of 5th CPC) to maintain parity with analogous posts

3. Whether the grant of actual arrears should be restricted given the belated filing of the applications

The Tribunal applied the principle of "continuous wrong" to bypass the bar of limitation in matters of pay fixation

It relied on the constitutional mandate of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 16, asserting that the Executive cannot arbitrarily deny parity to a specific section of employees

The court followed the precedent in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh [(2008) 8 SCC 648], which establishes that while relief for a continuous wrong can be granted despite delay, financial arrears must be restricted to three years prior to the filing of the petition

Furthermore, it cited K.T. Veerappa v. State of Karnataka [(2006) 9 SCC 406], affirming that courts may interfere in executive pay fixation if the decision is unreasonable or unjust

The Tribunal reasoned that the government's decision to rectify pay anomalies via the HPC proved that a disparity existed

By implementing the rectification prospectively from 21.04.2004 while granting notional benefits from 01.01.1996 to other analogous departments, the respondents created a "hostile discrimination"

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' plea of limitation, holding that pay fixation constitutes a continuous cause of action

It noted that the issue was already res integra, as multiple Benches and High Courts had consistently ruled that the 5th CPC replacements should be operational from 01.01.1996

The Tribunal criticized the "step-motherly attitude" of the respondents in granting benefits only 'in personam' to those who litigated, rather than issuing a general order for all similarly placed employees

It held that the applicants are entitled to the enhanced pay scales on a notional basis effective from 01.01.1996

Regarding financial relief, the Tribunal restricted the payment of actual arrears to a period of three years prior to the institution of the respective OAs, citing the delay in approaching the court

The respondents were directed to re-work the pay and pension and disburse arrears within four months, failing which 9% interest per annum would apply

The Tribunal further urged the respondents to issue a general order extending these benefits to all similarly placed employees to prevent further litigation