Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Sheo Ram vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... on 22 October, 2024
Page No.1
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Bench Allahabad
****
Original Application No.413/2024
This is the 22nd Day of October 2024.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A)
1. Sheo Ram, aged about 62 years, son of Shri Banshi Lal, R/o Flat
No.301, Maa Ardhkumari Apartment, 117/M/86, Kakadeo, Kanpur.
Retired as Superintendent (RTD) in the office of Central Tax and
Customs.
2. Abdul Hafeez Siddiqui, aged about 58 years, S/o Late Shri M.A.S.
Siddiqui, R/o New Friends Colony, Chandra Nagar, Lal Bangla,
Kanpur-208007, presently posted as Assistant Director in the office of
NACHIN, ZC, Kanpur.
3. Ajay Garg, aged about 55 years, S/o Late Shri S.S. Rajvanshi, R/o 282,
Adarsh Nagar, Kanpur, U.P.-208010, presently posted as
Superintendent (DDO) in the office of NACIN, CGST, Kanpur.
4. Ajai Kumar Boudh, aged about 53 years, son of Shri R.C. Boudh, R/o
103, Ratan Bhawan, 7/108A, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur-208002,
presently posted as Superintendent in the office of Central Excise &
CGST Audit Commissionerate, Kanpur.
5. Ajit Singh Gahlawat, aged about 52 years, son of late Shri Ishwar Singh
Gahlawat, R/o AE-4, Avantika Colony, Ghaziabad-201002, presently
posted as Superintendent in the office of CCO, CGST, Zone, Meerut.
6. Alok Chaudhary, aged about 56 years, son of Late Shri Raghuvir
Singh, R/o 288, Anand Vihar Colony (Shrinagar) Railway Road, Near
Railway Shiv Mandir, Hapur-245101 (U.P.), presently posted as
Superintendent in the office of CGST Range-31, Division Hapur,
Commissionerate, Noida.
7. Amit Jain, aged about 54 years, son of Shri Mahendra Kumar Jain,
R/o 44, Prem Prayag Colony, Near Medical College, Meerut-240004
(U.P.). presently posted as Superintendent in the office of CGST
Division Hapur, Commissionerate Noida.
8. Amresh Chandra Kureel, aged about 62 years, son of Late Shri Devi
Prasad Kureel, R/o Plot No.76, Rattan Lal Nagar, Kanpur-208022,
Retired from the post of Assistant Commissioner in the office of
Central Excise & CGST Audit, Commissionerate, Kanpur.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Page No.2
9. Anand Singh, aged about 54 years, son of Late Shri R.B. Singh, R/o
Himalaya Legend Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, presently posted as
Superintendent in the office of CGST, Ghaziabad.
10. Anil Kumar (Retd.), aged about 60 years, Shri Chhote Lal, R/o B-48,
Lakhmi Vihar, Garh Road, Meerut-250004, Retired from the post of
Assistant Commissioner in the office of Pr. Commissioner, CGST
Commissionerate Meerut.
11. Anil Kumar, aged about 58 years, son of Late Shri Sita Ram, R/o 104,
Sudha Sarovar Colony, Near C-Block Mandir, Govindpuram,
Ghaziabad, presently posted as Superintendent in the office of CGST
Division-II, Bareilly Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar 3rd Floor
Greater Noida.
12. Late Shri Jitendra Panwar, represented by his wife Mrs. Anju Panwar,
W/o Late Shri Jitendra Panwar, aged about 55 years, R/o Flat No.604,
RPG Heights, Ganga Nagar, Meerut, presently posted as
Ex-Superintendent in the office of CGST Commissionerate Div.
Meerut.
13. Arun Kumar, aged about 54 years, son of Late Shri Rampal Singh, R/o
H.No.91 Sec.-6, Chiranjiv Vihar, Ghaziabad-201002, presently posted
as Assistant Commissioner in the office of CGST Audit
Commissionerate, Meerut.
14. Ashok Kumar, aged about 60 years, son of Late Nawal Kishor Lal, R/o
243-1, Block-A, Vikas Nagar, Kanpur, Retired from the post of
Superintendent in the office of CGST & C. Ex. Div.-II, Kanpur.
15. Avadesh Kumar (Retd.), aged about 62 years, son of Late Shri Januki
Prasad, R/o A-21, IInd Floor, Sector-52,Noida-201307, Retired from
the post of Superintendent in the office of CGST Noida.
16. Bhuvnesh Kumar, aged about 58 years, son of Late Shri Mahipal
Singh, R/o A-1004, Angel Jupiter, Ahinsa Khand-2,Indirapuram,
Ghaziabad, presently posted as Superintendent in the office of CCO
Meerut, CPC Noida.
17. Dal Chand, aged about 57 years, son of Shri Ram Ratan Singh, R/o
SA-802, Gulmohar Tower, Chiranjeev Vihar, Sector-6, Ghaziabad,
presently posted as Superintendent in the office of CGST
Commissionerate Noida.
18. Devendra Dutt, aged about 76 years, son of Late Shri Vishambhar
Dayal, R/o 73, Ramganj, Railway Road, Hapur-245101, Retired from
the post of Superintendent in the office of CGST Commissionerate
Noida.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Page No.3
19. Devendra Kumar, aged about 54 years, son of Late Shri Sarju Prasad,
R/o House No.179, Sector-6, Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad, presently
posted as Superintendent in the office of CGST Div-III, G.B. Nagar.
20. Devendra Kumar, aged about 53 years, son of Late Pratap Singh, R/o
D-403, SPS, Residency Vaibhav Khand, Indirapuram,
Ghaziabad-201014, presently posted as Superintendent (Tech) in the
office of CGST Division, Moradabad Commissionerate, Meerut.
21. Devi Prasad, aged about 58 years, Shri Badlu, R/o D-645, Barra-8,
Kanpur, presently posted as Superintendent in the office of CGST &
Central Excise Div.-II, Meerut.
22. Gajendra Singh, aged about 60 years, son of Late Shir Dharam Singh
Kashyap, presently posted as Superintendent in the office of CGST
Commissionerate Noida.
23. Gopal Krishan Saxena, aged about 54 years, son of Shri Hari Baboo
Saxena, R/o 34, Harmilap Society, Ranapratap Nagar, Kanpur-208019,
presently posted as Superintendent in the office of CGST Agra.
24. Gulshan Kumar Bhalla, aged about 55 years, son of Shri Nand Lal
Bhalla, R/o A-184, Sector-47, Noida, presently posted as
Superintendent in the office of CGST Noida-CCO.
25. Himanshu Agarwal, aged about 56 years, son of Late Shri N.K.
Agarwal, R/o 703, PB, Gulmohar Tower, Chiranjiv Vihar, Ghaziabad,
presently posted as Superintendent (Review) in the office of Customs
Commissionerate, Noida.
26. Himanshu Srivastava, aged about 56 years, son of Late Shri S.S.
Srivastava, R/o 126/77, Block-H, Govind Nagar, Kanpur-208006,
presently posted as Superintendent in the office of Central Excise &
CGST, R-II, Div.-I, Kanpur.
27. Jagdeo Prasad, aged about 59 years, son of Man Phool, R/o 1/386,
Awas Vikas-3, Ambedkar Puram, Kalyanpur, Kanpur-208017,
presently posted as Superintendent in the office of Central Excise &
CGST Audit Commissionerate, Kanpur.
28. Jainendra Kumar Bajpai, aged about 65 years, son of Late Shri Nand
Kishore Bajpai, R/o B-113/1, LIG, Avas Vikas Colony, Unnao-209801,
Retired from the post of Superintendent in the office of CGST Audit
Commissionerate, Kanpur.
29. Jaipal Singh Chauhan, aged about 63 years, son of Late Shri Nihal
Singh Chauhan, R/o 117/94-C, Q Block Sharda Nagar,
Kanpur-208025, Retired from the post of Superintendent in the office
of CGST & C. Ex Kanpur.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Page No.4
30. Jawahar Lal Gautam, aged about 56 years, son of Late Shri Nyare Lal,
R/o A-166, Govindpuram, Ghaziabad-208025, presently posted as
Superintendent in the office of CGST Commissionerate Ghaziabad.
31. Jeevan Singh Bhainsora, aged about 58 years, son of Late Shri Badri
Singh Bhainsora, R/o L-3/502, Gulmohar Garden, Rajnagar
Extension, Ghaziabad-201014, presently posted as Superintendent in
the office of CGST Commissionerate Ghaziabad.
32. Jyoti Rani Sitani, aged about 57 years, D/o Late Shri K.L. Kastoori,
R/o Flat No.201, Murli Sadan, 117/H-1-170, Pandu Nagar,
Kanpur-208005, presently posted as Superintendent in the office of
CGST & C. Ex. Kanpur.
33. Kamal Kumar Kanaujia, aged about 54 years, son of Late Shri A.L.
Kanaujia, R/o B-96, Ashiyana, Phase-1, Moradabad-244001, presently
posted as Superintendent in the office of Dehradun Commissionerate.
34. Kamesh Bajpai, aged about 53 years, son of Late Shri Pratap Shanker
Bajpai, R/o 87/143-A, Dev Nagar, Kanpur-208003, presently posted as
Superintendent in the office of Central Excise & CGST Audit,
Commissionerate Kanpur.
35. Kamlesh Srivastava, aged about 69 years, son of Late Jagan Nath, R/o
E-25, Avas Vikas Krishna Vihjar, Kalyanpur, Kanpur, Retired from the
post of Superintendent in the office of CGST Commissionerate
Kanpur.
36. Kirtesh Pandit, aged about 52 years, son of Late Shri Yogendra Kumar
Sharma, R/o 12/411 A Behind Church, Gwaltoli, Kanpur-208001,
presently posted as Superintendent in the office of O/O The
Asst/Deputy Commissionerate CGST, Div-Farrukhabad, Civil Lines,
Fatehgarh.
37. Kishore Kumar, aged about 55 years, son of Late Shri Shyam Sundar
Prasad, R/o Flat No.H-903, KDA Signature Greens, Vikas Nagar,
Kanpur-208002, presently posted as Assistant Commissioner
(In-Superintendent) in the office of CGST Audit Commissionerate,
117/7, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur-208005.
38. L.V.S. Prasad, aged about 57 years, son of Late Shri L. Sanjeevi Rao,
R/o MMIG-71, Indira Nagar, Kalyanpur, Kanpur-208026, presently
working on loan basis of DGGI, Vishakhapatnam, Zonal Unit
Vishakhapatnama loaned from Central Excise of CGST
Commissionerate 117/7, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur.
39. Madan Pal Singh, aged about 59 years, son of Shri Surendra Nath
Singh, R/o M.P. Singh, 2/369, Vibhav Khand, Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow-226010, presently posted as Assistant Commissioner in the
office of Commissionerate CGST Audit Commissionerate, Noida.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Page No.5
40. Mahendra Kumar, aged about 58 years, son of Late Bharat Das, R/o
127/175, U Block, Nirala Nagar, Kanpur-208014, presently posted as
Assistant Commissioner (In-Situ) in the office of CGST & C.Ex. Div-I,
117/7 Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur-208005.
41. Mahesh Chandra Shukla, aged about 58 years, son of Late Shri Kamla
Kant Shukla, R/o 117/H-1/195, Flat No.205, Shyam Villa, Pandu
Nagar, Kanpur-208005, presently posted as Assistant Commissioner
(In Situ) in the office of GST Bhawan 117/7, Sarvodaya
Nagar,Kanpur-208005, Commissionerate, Kanpur.
42. Mahesh Kumar, aged about 56 years, son of Shri L. Er. Premi, R/o
A-256, Ganga Nagar, Meerut, presently posted as Assistant
Commissioner in the office of CGST Div-I, Meerut, Mangal Pandey
Nagar Opposite CCS University, Meerut.
43. Manish Tiwari, aged about 54 years, son of Shri C.M. Tiwari, R/o
GNS-80, Sindhi Society Indira Nagar, Kanpur-208026, presently
posted as Superintendent in the office of CGST Audit
Commissionerate Kanpur.
44. Manoj Kumar Srivastava, aged about 56 years, son of Late Shri Gopal
Charan Srivastava, R/o D-1002, Angel Jupiter, Ahinsa Khand-2, Near
DPS, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, presently posted as Superintendent in
the office of CGST Audit Commissionerate Noida.
45. Manoj Kumar Shukla, aged about 63 years, son of Shri Vinod Kumar
Shukla, R/o B-1104, Eldeco City, Breeze, IIM Road, Mubarakpur,
Lucknow, Retired from the post of Superintendent in the office of
CGST & Central Excise Audit, Commissionerate Kanpur.
46. Late Shir Naveen Kumar Saxena, represented by his wife Mrs.
Meenakshi Saxena, son of Late Shri Ram Autar Saxena, R/o A-177,
Sector-26, Noida-201301, presently posted as Superintendent in the
office of CGST & Central Excise Customs Commissionerate Noida.
47. Milind Kumar, aged about 54 years, son of Shri Chandra Shekhar, R/o
B-708, PMO Society Sector-62, Noida, presently posted as
Superintendent in the office of CCO CGST & Central Excise Meerut
Zone, Meerut CPC Noida.
48. Monica Shukla, aged about 52 years, D/o Shri R.B. Dixit, R/o
117/803, M-Block, Kaka Dev, Kanpur, presently posted as Inspector in
the office of CGST Audit Commissionerate, Kanpur.
49. Mukesh Chandra Kharkwal, aged about 56 years, son of Late Shri
Ram Datt Kharkwal, R/o B-202, Ivory Tower, Sector-5, Vasundhara,
Ghaziabad (U.P.)-201012, presently posted as Superintendent in the
office of Commissioner, CGST Audit Commissionerate, Noida.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Page No.6
50. Naresh Kumar Kohli, aged about 57 years, son of Late Shri Maya Ram
Kohli, R/o 205, Tejab Mill Campus, Anwar Ganj, Kanpur-208003,
presently posted as Superintendent in the office of CGST & Central
Excise Audit Commissionerate, Kanpur.
51. Nilendra Kumar Singh, aged about 57 years, son of Shir Chandra Pal
Singh, R/o K-39, Avas Vikas Keshavpuram, Kalyanpuri,
Kanpur-208013, presently posted as Superintendent in the office of
Central CGST, Div-II, 117/7, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur.
52. Nishan Singh, aged about 54 years, son of Late Shri Dalbir Singh, R/o
Jawahar Nagar Gajraula, District Amroha-244235, presently posted as
Superintendent in the office of CGST Commissionerate Meerut.
53. Naushad Husain, aged about 66 years, son of Late Shir Shamshad
Husain, R/o Plot No.54, Muneer, Villa, River Heights, Raj Nagar,
Extension, Ghaziabad-201017, Retired from the post of Superintendent
in the office of CGST Commissionerate Ghaziabad.
54. Om Prakash Ahuja, aged about 63 years, son of Late Shir R.C. Ahuja,
R/o 12, Verandavan Dham Maruti State Road, Agra-282010, Retired
from the post of Superintendent in the office of CGST, Division Jhansi.
55. Om Prakash Singh, aged about 64 years, son of Late Shri Kalp Nath
Singh, R/o 117/806, P-Block, Kakadeo Kanpur-208025, retired as
Superintendent in the office of CGST D-II, Commissionerate, Kanpur.
56. Pradeep Kumar Biswas, aged about 57 years, son of Late Shri S.N.
Biswas, R/o Flat No.63G/Floor, Ashiana Greens Ahinsa Khand-II,
Indirapuram, Ghaziabad-201014, presently posted as Superintendent
in the office of CGST Bhawan, C-232A/2, C-232A/3, Sector-48 Noida,
U.P.
57. Prashant Kumar Srivastava, aged about 56 years, son of Late Chandra
Kishore Srivastava, R/o B-70, New Panchwati Colony, G.T. Road,
Ghaziabad, presently posted as Superintendent in the office of
Customs Commissionerate Noida.
58. Pratibha Agarwal, aged about 55 years, D/o Late Shri V.N. Mittal, R/o
B-107, Ratan Planet, Naramau, Kanpur-209217, presently posted as
Superintendent in the office of CGST Commissionerate Kanpur.
59. Praveen Mehrotra, aged about 53 years, son of Late Shir P.B. Mehrotra,
R/o 25/15, Canal Road, Kanpur-208019, presently posted as
Superintendent in the office of CGST Bhawan, 113/4, Sanjay Place,
Agra-208019.
60. Praveen Saharan, aged about 54 years, son of Late Shri Dharam Pal
Singh, R/o H.No.670/2, Mangal Panday Nagar, Meerut, presently
posted as Superintendent in the office of CGST Commissionerate
Meerut.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Page No.7
61. Rahul Singh, aged about 51 years, son of Late Shri Surender Pal Singh,
R/o D-319, Shastri Nagar, Meerut, presently posted as Superintendent
in the office of Pr. Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate Meerut.
62. Rakesh Kumar Verma, aged about 53 years, son of Late Shri Ram Das,
R/o MIG-02, KDA Colony, Rampuram, Shyam Nagar, Kanpur-208013,
presently posted as Superintendent in the office of Central CGST,
Div-II, 117/7, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur.
63. Raj Bahadur Singh, aged about 57 years, son of Late Shir Khushali
Ram, R/o Mohalla Sidharth Nagar, New Navadiya Fatehgarh, District
Farrukhabad-209601, presently posted as Superintendent in the office
of Central Excise & CGST Division, Farrukhabad Commissionerate,
Kanpur.
64. Raj Kumar, aged about 57 years, son of late Ghasite Lal, R/o Omkar
Shree Apartment, 127/428 H-2, Block, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur-208011,
presently posted as Superintendent in the office of CGST & C.Ex.
Div.-I 117/7 Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur-208005.
65. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, aged about 58 years, son of Late Ishwar Sharan
Sinha, R/o F-343, Gaur Cascades, Rajnagar Extension, Ghaziabad,
presently posted as Assistant Commissioner (In Situ) in the office of
Chief Commissioner Customs & CGST Zone, Meerut, U.P.
66. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, aged about 55 years, son of Late Shri Harish
Chandra Srivastava, R/o A-8-1, Fortune Residency Rajnagar
Extension, Ghaziabad, presently posted as Superintendent in the
office of CGST Commissionerate Noida.
67. Rajeev Prasad Kaushik, aged about 67 years, son of Late Shri Jagdish
Prasad, R/o Azure 201, Supertech 34, Pavilion, Sector-34, Noida,
Retired from the post of Superintendent in the office of CGST Audit
Commissionerate Ghaziabad.
68. Rajiv Ranjan, aged about 54 years, son of Late Shri G.N. Srivastava,
R/o K407, Ajnara Integrity Rajnagar Extension, Ghaziabad, presently
posted as Superintendent in the office of CGST Meerut.
69. Rakesh Chandra, aged about 52 years, son of Late Shir Nitya Nand,
R/o B-504, Jansatta Appartments, Sec-9, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad,
presently posted as Superintendent in the office of CGST Meerut,
D-Meerut-I.
70. Ranjana Saxena, aged about 61 years, D/o Late Shir S.G. Nigam, R/o
117/740-A, Q-Block, Sharda Nagar, Kanpur-208025, Retired from the
post of Superintendent in the office of CGST Commissionerate,
Kanpur.
71. Ratan Kumar Srivastava, aged about 56 years, son of Late Shir
Madhav Prasad Srivastava, R/o M-2/504, Gulmohar Enclave, Rakesh
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Page No.8
Marg, Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad-221001, presently posted as
Superintendent in the office of CGST Commissionerate Meerut.
72. Rabendra Kumar Chauhan, aged about 57 years, son of Late Shir H.S.
Chauhan, R/o 603, Tower-B, Yorkshire, Mahagun, Meadows, Sector
150, Noida-201310, presently posted as Assistant Commissioner in the
office of ACC Export, New Custom House, Near IGI Airport, Delhi.
73. Ravi Prakash Verma, aged about 54 years, son of Late Shri R.R. Verma,
R/o House No.27, Ground Floor, Ansal Garden, Enclave, Delhi-Hapur
Road, Ghaziabad, presently posted as Superintendent in the office of
Customs Noida.
74. Ravinder Singh, aged about 49 years, son of Late Shri Rajender Singh,
R/o R-710, VVIP Address Rajnagar Extension, Ghaziabad-201017,
presently posted as Superintendent in the office of CGST
Commissionerate-Meerut, D-I Meerut.
75. Sajjan Singh, aged about 54 years, son of Late Shri Bhagwan Singh,
R/o 204-A, Sector-11, Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, presently posted as
Superintendent in the office of CGST Audit Commissionerate, Noida.
76. Sandeep Bali, aged about 57 years, son of Late Shri Kamleshwar Bali,
R/o H-1486, Satyam Vihar, Awas Vikas, Kalyanpur, Kanpur-208017,
presently posted as Superintendent in the office of CGST & Central
Excise Commissionerate 117/7 Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur-208005.
77. Sandeep Jain, aged about 53 years, S/o Shri Chandra Bhan Jain, R/o
C-99, Pocket-7, Kendriya Vihar Sector-82, Noida, presently posted as
Superintendent in the office of CGST Audit Commissionerate, Noida.
78. Santosh Kumar, aged about 64 years, son of Late Shir Radhey Shyam,
R/o 127/142, W-2, Juhi Kala, Kanpur, Retired from the service on the
post of Superintendent in the office of CGST Commissionerate,
Kanpur.
79. Sanjay Juyal, aged about 56 years, son of Late Shri S.N. Juyal, R/o
Gangotri Colony, Pal College, R.T.O. Road, Haldwani, presently
posted as Superintendent in the office of CGST Commissionerate,
Dehradun.
80. Sanjay Bhatnagar, aged about 56 years, son of Sri G.S. Bhatnagar, R/o
X-1/171, Krishna Puram, G.T.E Road, Kanpur-208007, presently
posted as Superintendent in the office of Commissioner CGST & Cex,
Commissionerate GST Bhawan 113/4, Sanjay Place Agra-208019.
81. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, aged about 54 years, son of Late Shri Jagdish
Prasad Pathak, R/o 79, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, Meerut-250004,
presently posted as Superintendent in the office of CGST
Commissionerate Meerut.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Page No.9
82. Subhash Chander, aged about 60 years, son of Late Shri Dulichand,
R/o E-417, Ashiana Le Residency, Golf Links, NH-24, Indirapuram,
Ghaziabad, Retired from the service on the post of Superintendent in
the office of CGST Noida.
83. Satish Chandra Budlakoti, aged about 55 years, son of Late Shri
Madhusudan Budlakoti, R/o B-802, Aditya Urban Casa, Sector-78,
Noida, presently posted as Superintendent in the office of CCO
Meerut at CPC Noida.
84. Shiv Kumar Nimesh, aged about 54 years, son of Shri Pratap Singh,
R/o A-29, Shastri Nagar, Meerut-250004, presently posted as
Superintendent in the office of CGST Audit Commissionerate Meerut.
85. Sri Krishan Malik, aged about 53 years, son of Shri Om Prakash Malik,
R/o AE-6, Avantika Colony, Ghaziabad-201002, presently posted as
Superintendent in the office of CGST Commissionerate, Meerut.
86. Srikant Dwivedi, aged about 57 years, son of Late Shri Neel Kanth,
Dwivedi, R/o House No.48, Sector-1, Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad,
U.P., retired as Superintendent in the office of Division-6 CGST
Commissionerate Ghaziabad.
87. Subhasish Banerjee, aged about 55 years, son of Late Shri B.N.
Banerjee, R/o K-79, Sector-11, Noida, presently posted as
Superintendent in the office of CGST Commissionerate Noida.
88. Subhash Chand, aged about 57 years, son of Late Shir Prahalad Singh,
R/o I-289, Govindpuram, Ghaziabad, presently posted as
Superintendent in the office of CGST R-IV, DIV-II, Meerut.
89. Sudhir Kumar Pathak, aged about 62 years, son of Late Shri J.P.
Pathak, R/o SD-39, Shastri Nagar, Ghaziabad-201002, retired as
Superintendent in the office of CGST Commissionerate Ghaziabad.
90. Sujeet Kumar Sinha, aged about 55 years, son of Late Shri Shyam
Sunder Prasad, R/o 16A/2113, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad-201012,
presently posted as Assistant Commissioner in the office of DGOV,
North Zonal Unit,2nd Floor CR Building I.P. Estate New Delhi-11002.
91. Sumitra Sharma, aged about 56 years, W/o Late Shri Bal Gopal
Sharma, R/o J-223/15, Gamma-2, Greater Noida, presently posted as
Superintendent in the office of CGST G.B. Nagar, Greater Noida.
92. Sunil Kumar, aged about 55 years, son of Late Shir B. Lal, R/o A-102,
Anjara Grace, Rajnagar, Extension, Ghaziabad, presently posted as
Superintendent (Tech) in the office of CGST G.B. Nagar, Bareilly-I.
93. Sunil Kumar Srivastava, aged about 61 years, son of Late Shri K.D.
Srivastava, r/o 273A, Tejab Mill Campus, Anwarganj, Kanpur-208003,
Retired from the post of Superintendent, Last posted at CGST Kanpur.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Page No.10
94. Sushil Kumar, aged about 54 years, son of Late Shir Mishri Lal, R/o
31, HIG, Mukherji Vihar, Indira Nagar, Kanpur, presently posted as
Superintendent in the office of CGST & C. Ex. DIV-I, 117/7 Sarvodaya
Nagar, Kanpur-208005.
95. Tripti Rudra Pradhan, aged about 55 years, wife of Late Shri B.K.
Pradhan, R/o Saket 1002, Grihapravesh Sec-77, Noida, presently
posted as Superintendent in the office of CGST D-I, G.B. Nagar.
96. Vandana Ajay, aged about 56 years, D/o Late Shri Sheo Hari Kant,
R/o 116, Navsheeldham Kalyanpur Bithoor Road, Kanpur-2080017,
presently posted as Inspector in the office of CGST, Div-III, Kanpur.
97. Varsha Bhatnagar, aged about 52 years, wife of Late Shri Ajay Mohan
Bhatnagar, R/o T-11/302, Exotica Dream Ville, Greater Noida West,
Noida-201306, presently posted as Superintendent in the office of
Central Tax & Central Excise Commissionerate Noida.
98. Vijay Kumar Gupta, aged about 67 years, son of Late Jagdish Prasad
Gupta, R/o Flat No.A-301, MSX Alpha Homes, Sector Alpha-1,
Greater Noida-201306, Retired from the post of Superintendent in the
office of CGST Commissionerate G.B. Nagar.
99. Vinay Gupta, aged about 56 years, son of Shri B.K. Gupta, R/o C-73,
Kendriya Vihar, Sec. 51 Noida, presently posted as Assistant
Commissioner (In Situ) in the office of CGST DIV-II, Meerut.
100. Vinay Misra, aged about 59 years, son of Late Shir Salig Ram Misra,
R/o 34 Khursheed Bagh, Lucknow, UP-226004, presently posted as
Deputy Director in the office of NACIN, ZC, Kanpur.
101. Vishal Gupta, aged about 49 years, son of Late Shri Ram Niwas Gupta,
R/o B-62, Second Floor, Parsvnath Paradise, Mohan Nagar,
Ghaziabad-201007, presently posted as Superintendent (Customs) in
the office of Noida Special Economic Zone.
102. Vishnu Shanker Shukla, aged about 66 years son of Late Shri Jai Ram
Shukla, R/o J-494, Keshav Puram, Awas Vikas-I, Kalyanpur,
Kanpur-208017, Retired from the post of Superintendent in the office
of CGST & C. Ex. Div-I, 117/7, Sarvoday Nagar, Kanpur-208005.
103. Virendra Pratap Singh, aged about 56 years, son of Shir Om Prakash
Singh, R/o House No.42, Sector-6, Chiranjiv Vihar, Ghaziabad,
presently posted as Superintendent in the office of CGST CCO Meerut
Zone, Meerut.
104. Yashwant Kumar Singhai, aged about 61 years, son of Late Shri Deep
Chand Singhai, R/o Civil Lines Zila Parishad, Near Aditi Agencies,
Lalitpur, U.P., Retired from the post of Superintendent in the office of
C.G.S.T. Commissionerate, Kanpur.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Page No.11
105. Yogesh Chand Aggarwal, aged about 56 years, son of Late Shir P.C.
Gupta, R/o H.No.153, Sec-9, Urban Estate, Ambala City,
Haryana-134003, presently posted as Superintendent in the office of
CGST Div.-Rudrapur Commissionerate, Dehradun.
..........Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Jaswant Singh
Versus
1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Government of India, North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India,
New Delhi.
3. The Chairman, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, North
Block, New Delhi.
4. The Principal Chief Commissioner (Cadre Controlling Authority),
Central GST and Central Excise, Lucknow Zone, 7-A, Ashok Marg,
Lucknow (U.P.)
5. The Chief Commissioner, Central GST & Customs, Meerut Zone,
Opposite Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Mangal Pandey Nagar,
Meerut (U.P.).
6. The Principal Chief Controller of Accounts, Central Board of Indirect
Taxes and Customs, 1st floor, DGACR Building, I P Estate, New Delhi.
........... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) Heard Shri Jawant Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned consel for the respondents.
2. With the consent of the learned counsel for both parties, the present Original Application is being disposed of finally at the admistion stage.
3. The applicants have filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking to quash SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.12 the impugned orders dated 25.07.2023 and 21.04.2004 by which the respondents restrict the actual benefits of the revised pay scales for Inspectors and Superintendents of Excise. The applicants request that these benefits be granted from 01.01.1996 instead of 21.04.2004, which is the date of the order revising the pay scales. The applicants further seeking a direction to the respondents to grant them the revised pay scales for these posts from 01.01.1996, on an actual basis, with all consequential benefits, including payment of arrears of salary and other emoluments for the entire period up to 21.04.2004 with interest.
4. The facts of the case, as reflected in the Original Application, are that the applicants, who are either currently employed or retired as Superintendents/Assistant Commissioners from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC), were initially appointed as Inspectors (pay scale Rs.1640-2900) in the same department.
5. The pay scales of Inspectors (Rs.1640-2900) and Superintendents (Rs.2000-3500) in various departments, including CBIC and the Income Tax Department, were upgraded in 2004. However, while similarly situated officers in other departments such as the Railway Accounts and Postal Accounts, received the upgraded pay scales with retrospective effect from 01.01.1996, CBIC and Income Tax officers received them only from 21.04.2004.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that similar officers in other departments, such as those in the organized accounts cadre and other comparable services, had their pay scales revised with effect from 1.1.1996. However, for CBIC officers, the revised pay scales were applied from 21.4.2004, without a notional effect back to 1996.
7. The counsel also relied on precedents where Central Administrative Tribunals (CAT) in Kolkata, Mumbai, and Principal Bench, Delhi granted relief in analogous cases. These cases determined that denying retroactive application to 1.1.1996 SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.13 constituted a discriminatory practice, thus mandating notional application from this earlier date. The applicants submitted multiple representations, which were rejected by the department after consultation with the Department of Expenditure, stating no further benefit would be extended to applicants retrospectively. Furthermore, several judicial pronouncements, including those from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Delhi High Court upheld the claim that such upgrades should indeed apply retrospectively to 1.1.1996.
8. In support of his case, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the Special Anomaly Committee's findings, favorable in similar cases, are being selectively applied to a limited group. Citing CAT orders from Hyderabad and other benches, the applicants seek a directive for uniform application of the upgraded pay scale from 1.1.1996, aligning them with officers across departments where parity was already granted. The relief of the applicants is based on established CAT and High Court orders, which have been affirmed up to the level of the Apex Court.
9. The respondents, represented by Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, Sr. Central Government Standing Counsel, contend that the revision of pay scales was approved from 21.04.2004 and does not warrant retrospective application to 01.01.1996. He submits that the Department of Expenditure determined the effective date based on administrative considerations and budgetary constraints and therefore the relief sought by the applicants is not tenable.
10. We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for both parties and perused the material available on record as well as the judgment and orders passed by various Courts/Tribunal as well as Hon'ble Court.
11. It is seen from the record that on 21.04.2004, the Ministry of Finance issued an office memorandum regarding the upgradation of pay scales for various posts under the Central Board of Direct Taxes SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.14 (CBDT) and the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC). The revised pay scales include the Income Tax Officer, which remains at Rs. 7500-12000, while the Appraiser (Central Excise), Superintendent (Central Excise), and Superintendent (Customs Preventive) positions have been increased to Rs. 7500-12000 from the previous Rs.6500-10500. Additionally, the Income Tax Inspector, Inspector (Central Excise), Examiner (Customs), and Preventive Officer (Customs) positions have seen their pay scales revised to Rs. 6500-10500 from Rs. 5500-9000. These changes are effective immediately as of 21st April 2004. The said letter is reproduced as follows:-
F.No.6/37/98-IC Government of Indian Ministry of Finance Department of Expenditure (Implementation Cell) New Delhi, dated the 21st April, 2004 Subject: Upgradation of pay scales of posts in CBDT and CBEC under Department of Revenue.
The undersigned is directed to state that the pay scales of the posts of Income Tax Officers and Income Tax Inspectors under Central Board of Direct Taxes and posts of Appraisers, Superintendents (Central Excise), Superintendent (Customs Preventive), Inspector (Central Excise). Examiners, Customs an Preventive Officers (Customs) stands revised as under:-
Post Existing Pay Scale Revised Pay
Scale
Income Tax Officer Rs 7500-12000 Rs. 7500-12000
Appraiser (Central Excise) Rs.6500-10500 Rs. 7500-12000
Superintendent (Central Excise) Rs.6500-10500 Rs. 7500-12000
Superintendent (Customs Rs. 500-10500 Rs. 7500-12000
Preventive)
Income Tax Inspector Rs. 5500-9000 Rs. 6500-10500
Inspector (Central Excise) Rs. 5500-9000 Rs. 6500-10500
Examiner (Customs) Rs. 5500-9000 Rs. 6500-10500
Preventive Officer (Customs) Rs. 5500-9000 Rs. 6500-10500
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Page No.15
The revised pay scale shall take effect immediately from the date of these orders.
12. The said Office Memorandum was challenged by similarly placed officers before the Mumbai Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 86/2008 (Income Tax Gazetted Officers' Association vs. Union of India & Ors.) and before the Calcutta Bench in OA No. 397/2009 (Ashish Chakraborty & 12 others vs. Union of India & Ors.). Both Benches of the Tribunal held that the upgradation in pay scale effective from 21.04.2004 was arbitrary and illegal, ordering the grant of an enhanced pay scale with notional effect from 01.01.1996. The relevant portions of both orders are reproduced as follows:
"OA No. 86/2008 (Income Tax Gazetted Officers' Association vs. Union of India & Ors.) passed by Mumbai Bench "The challenge in this case by the Application Association (the Income Tax Gazetted Officers‟ Association) is that when the respondents have fully appreciated the complete parity between Accounts Staff of the Organized Accounts Cadre and Railway Accounts Service on the one hand and those holding comparable positions in the Income Tax Department i.e. Income Tax Inspectors on the other and when accordingly the pay scale of the Income Tax Officers had been revised from Rs.6,500 - Rs.10,500 to Rs.7,500 - 12000/-, the error committed by the Respondents is in respect of the effective date of the revised pay scale to the Income Tax Officers in that, while the higher pay scales for the Accounts Staff had on notional basis been granted with effect from 01.01.1996, the Income Tax Officers, however, have been afforded the higher scale only w.e.f. 21st April, 2004. The claim, therefore, is that they be paid the higher pay scale of Rs.7,500 - 12,000 notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and their pay fixed accordingly and the arrears arising out of the same be paid to them.
Xxxx xxxxx
17. The bottomline in the above authoritative pronouncement of the judgments by the Apex Court is that in matters of pay scale, judicial intervention is not unjustified if the equality clause of the Constitution is violated.
Xxxxxxxxxxxx
21. In the instant case, the respondents themselves have analysed and held that parity in pay scales is warranted and reference to Accounts Cadre stating that the same would be in consonance with the Accounts cadre also confirms that according to the respondents themselves, even with reference to the Accounts Cadre, parity has to be maintained. Thus, the claim of the applicant is not based on any comparison with the other departments on the basis of equal pay for equal work but to emphasize that once it has been established that there is full SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.16 justification for grant of equal pay to both those in the Accounts Departments and the Income Tax Page 76 of 84 OA No.21/1089/2019 & Batch Officers whether there could be any justification in fixing a different date of effect of such higher pay scale. 22. Absolute equality is not contemplated in the equality clause of the Constitution. From that point of view, the respondents may be right in fixing different dates for applicability of revised pay scales on actual basis i.e. 19.02.2003 for one department and 21.04.2004 for the applicants. The claim of the applicants is also not for such precision in the date of actual effect of the revised pay scales. They are satisfied with the date 21.04.2004 in this regard. Their claim is that once comparison between two posts for grant of equal pay scale is made and accepted and accordingly, identical pay scales have been prescribed for the two posts, denial of the benefits to the applicants of revised pay scale on notional basis granted to one department raises the relevant legal issue whether the Respondents are right in prescribing that the revised pay would be effective only from a prospective date. There is substance in the contention of the applicants. Whenever in the past a claim is made by the individuals or considered by the Department itself, for extension of the benefits of higher pay scale, there is, invariably, uniform fixation of revised pay scale on notional basis, while on actual basis, there could be difference in the dates of implementation. Xxxx xxxx 23. All the above cases would go to show that when equal pay scale is justified, the least that the Government should afford is that the revised pay is admissible with effect from a uniform date notionally, though date of revised pay scale on actual basis may differ.
Xxxxxx
25. In the case in hand, the Officer on Special Duty in the Ministry of Finance only stated „with retrospective effect‟ and no reasons as to why the pay scale should not on notional basis from the date of 01.01.1996 has been spelt out. The deciding authority i.e. the Hon‟ble Minister also did not consider the same. The fact that higher pay scale to the applicants would be in consonance with the decision in the case of Accounts Cadre has been specifically mentioned. In the absence of any material to justify different date of implementation, rejection of the case of the applicants for uniform date of implementation (i.e. 01.01.1996 on notional basis) cannot be held to be legally valid. For, there is no intelligible differentia or reasonable classification to justify such disparity. It has been stated in the aforesaid case of Union of India vs. Bijoy Lal Ghosh as under:
"29. It is always possible to exclude any class based on reasonable classification from the benefit under any policy decision, the classification having direct nexus with the object sought to be achieved. But, in the present case, in the absence of any material placed, we do not find any such so far as the respondents are concerned. Reading that would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the present case, we find that the Government has stoutly supported the recommendations and the same is said to have been implemented in the Union Territories and some of its Departments."
26. To sum up, the OA deserves to be allowed on the following solid and valid reasons:-
(a) Admittedly, parity in pay scales between the posts of Iricome Tax Officers on the one hand and the comparable posts in the organized Accounts cadre and accounts Department in the Railways as well as GSI having been fully accepted, vide the noting of the Ministry of Finance as SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.17 extracted in para 17 above, there is no reason for fixing a different date.
When notional fixation of pay has been provided for in other cases, the same ought to have been followed in the case of the applicants as well.
(b) The general pactice, as has been reflected in para 21 above is also that in all such cases where revision of payscale is allowed at a laterr point of time, revised pay scale is made applicable though on notional basis to coincide with the date as applicable to other cases.
(c) There is no reason to deny the applicants the benefit of revised pay scale on notional basis from 01-01-1996.
27. In view of the above, the OA succeeds. It is declared that the decision to give prospective effect to the revised pay scale of the Income Tax Officers in the grade of Rs 7450 12000 is arbitrary and illegal. The applicants are entitled to have their pay scale fixed w.e.f. 01-01-1996 on notional basis, as has been given to various others in the Railway Accounts and those in the Organized Accounts cadre. The applicants (members of the Applicant No. 1 Association) are entitled to arrears of pay and allowances arising therefrom. Respondents are directed to pass suitable orders in this regard and also make available the arrears of pay and allowances to all the affected officers."
OA No. 397/2009 (Ashish Chakraborty & 12 others vs. Union of India & Ors.) passed by Calcutta Bench
6. Short issue which needs determination is whether in the given facts & circumstances applicants are entitle to similar benefits as granted by Coordinate Bench in Income Tax Gazetted Officers Association & Anr v. UOI & ors. On examination of said Order, we notice that applicants were granted benefits of upgraded pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996, but it was only on national-basis as has been given to various others in the Railway Accounts and those in the Organised Accounts cadre. Perusal of said Order also reveal that coordinate Bench has basically granted relief to applicants therein on making comparison with their counterparts in Railway Accounts & other organized Accounts cadre personnel. The learned Counsel for the respondents stated that they have decided to challenge said-decision before the Hon'ble High Court. A full bench of the Tribunal in O.A. 1124/04 Shri K. V. Ganesan Vs. Union of India through Additional Director, CGHS and Other O.As (Chennai Bench) had declined to refer the matter to a larger Bench as Writ Petitions were pending before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka & Chennai. In view of this position we are not examining the correctness of said view. In such circumstances, following said Order of coordinate Bench, present OA is allowed: Applicants would be entitled to upgraded pay-scale from 1.1.1996 on notional basis and arrears from 21.4.2004 onweardfs only. We also observe that applicants would also be bound by the decision of said Writ Besition & such other proceedings as may be taken up therein. No cost."
13. The Union of India, against the order dated 10.07.2012, passed by the Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.397/2009 (Ashish Chakraborty & 12 others vs. Union of India & Ors.) has filed Writ SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.18 Petition No.21/2015 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashis Chakraborty & Ors.) before the Kolkata High Court and the Kolkata High Court vide order dated 03.05.2023 disposed of the aforesaid writ petition with the following directions:-
"............ The question, therefore, remains in the instant litigation is whether the effect can be given to such recommendation from 01.01.1996 or from a date posterior thereto. In all such cases, relied upon before us, the Special Anomaly Committed was directed to be constituted to take a conscious decision in this regard. Since it is the policy decision of the Government of India and the interference under the power of judicial review is very limited in this regard, we feel that it would sub-serve the justice if the Special Anomaly Committee is constituted and a decision is taken in this regard.
The impugned order needs to be modified to the extent that the Union of India should constitute a Special Anomaly Committee to take a decision on the grievance raised by the petitioners in the representations having made in this regard and communicate such decision to the respective respondents.
We, therefore, direct that the Union of India shall constitute a Special Anomaly Committee within two months from the date of communication of this order who shall decide the representations made by the respondents annexed to the writ-petition from page 70 onwards within one month from the date of constitution of the said Committee and shall communicate the decision within a week therefrom to the respective respondents.
With these observations, the writ-petition being WPCT 21 of 2015 is disposed of. No order as to costs."
14. In compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, the Union of India constituted a Special Anomaly Committee to address the grievances of the applicants in that case. By order dated 22.09.2023, the Special Anomaly Committee issued its recommendations for those 13 applicants, advising that the pay scales for the grades of Inspector and Superintendent be notionally enhanced with effect from 01.01.1996, with pay refixed accordingly. It further recommended that actual payments, including arrears, be provided from 21.04.2004. The relevant portion of the recommendation of the Special Anomaly Committee is reproduced as below:-
"..............
To, SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.19 The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), Kolkata Sir/Madam, Subt: Implementation of Order of Hon'ble High Court Calcutta dated 03.05.2023 in the matter of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Ashish Chakraborty and Others in WP No. 21/2015-ng Kindly refer to above,
2. Consequent upon the direction of Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta dated 03.05.2023 in the matter of Ashish Chakraborty and others (WPC No. 21/2015), a Special Anomaly Committee was constitu with the approval of the Competent Authority to decide the representations made by the respondents a the Writ Petition no. 21/2015.
3. The Special Anomaly Committee made relevant recommendations as under:
"The Committee while taking into considerations all the points raised by these 13 applican in their applications and the analysis made at preceding paras of the report, is of considered view the there is an anomaly in the date of effectiveness for grant of enhanced pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 case of Inspector of Income Tax and Rs. 7500-12000 in case of Income Tax Officer. In some of the eas the enhanced pay scale was granted w.e.f. 01.01.1996 while in case of Income Tax Officer and Inspector of Income Tax it was granted w.e.f. 21.04.2004. This anomaly needs to be redressed in case of these 13 respondents, subject to the approval of the Competent Authority.
3.1 The Committee has also spelt out its recommendations in case of each of the 13 respondents as under.
..............
..............
..............
However, the Committee is of the view that the correctness of the date of joining in the cadre of Inspector of Income Tax and Income Tax Officer should be verified from the service book of the concerned officials at the time of giving effect of the recommendations of the Committee.
The recommendations of the Committee have been accepted by the Government and it has been decided to give effect of recommendations of the Special Anomaly Committee in case of all the 13 respondents as per details at para 3 and 3.1 above.
5. The above decisions may be communicated to all the respondents and also to all the HoDs under whom they are posted to give effect of the above decision of Government with regard to fixation of pay and payment of arrears in terms of recommendations of the Special Anomaly Committee as mentioned at para 3 and 3.1 above,
6. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority."
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.20
15. It is also seen from the record that similarly placed employees belonging to the Railway Department, on denial of equality of pay w.e.f. 01.01.1996, filed OA No. 671 of 2003 before the CAT, Ernakulam Bench and the said OA was allowed vide order dt. 30.06.2006 and the Writ Petition (C) No. 22276 of 2007, which was filed challenging the order in OA No. 671/2003, was dismissed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, vide judgment dt. 27.03.2012. SLP (Civil) No. 9832/2013 and the Review Petition (Civil) No. 1494 of 2013, filed by the Union of India were also dismissed on 25.02.2013 and 01.08.2023 respectively.
16. Further, similarly situated employees of Railway filed OA No. 925/2003 before the CAT, Patna aggrieved by non-extension of actual benefit of appropriate pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and the said OA was dismissed on 30.06.2005. However, the Writ Petition No. 11452 of 2005, filed against the said order, was allowed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Patna, on 09.04.2010 and the Review Petition No. 233 of 2010 filed by the Union of India was dismissed on 30.04.2013 by the High Court. Even the SLP (Civil) No. 1587-1588 of 2014, filed by the Union of India was also dismissed on 07.07.2014 by the Apex Court.
17. It is further brought to the notice of this Tribunal that All India Railway Accounts Staff Association along with others filed OA No. 4419 of 2014 seeking the enhanced pay w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and the same was dismissed by the Principal Bench, CAT on 15.09.2015 and even the Review Petition was also dismissed on 11.12.2015. Upon challenge by the All India Railway Accounts Staff Association, before the High Court of Delhi vide WP Civil No. 1523 of 2016, the writ petition was allowed on 18.12.2019, by directing the respondents to grant revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
18. In an another case, All India Postal Accounts Employees Association filed OA No. 763 of 2015 before the Principal Bench, SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.21 CAT for identical reliefs and the said OA was allowed on 03.02.2022 directing the respondents to grant the relief of pay w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
19. The Principal Bench of this Tribunal, in its order dated 03.02.2022 passed in OA No. 763/2015 in MA No. 630/2015 (All India Postal Accounts Employees Association represented by T. Satyanaryana & Ors. Vs. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, New Delhi & Anr.), granted the actual benefits of the upgraded pay scales effective from 01.01.1996 under similar circumstances. The fundamental premise of the applicants' argument is that once the pay scales are upgraded in accordance with a commission's report, those benefits should be provided to employees from the date the report is implemented. The Government or Ministries issuing separate office memoranda cannot curtail the benefits of employees with respect to such upgradation.
20. The applicant filed OA No. 154/2015 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, seeking the grant of a revised pay scale. On 11.01.2022, the Tribunal disposed of the application, issuing a directive to the respondents to implement the revised pay scale for the applicant effective from 01.01.1996, the date on which the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC) became operational. Dissatisfied with the Tribunal's order, the Union of India subsequently filed Writ Petition No. 16035/2022 before the Rajasthan High Court, contesting the direction given by the Tribunal. However, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the writ petition. In further pursuit of the matter, the Union of India filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) No. 2944/2024 against the order of the Rajasthan High Court concerning WP No. 16035/2022. This SLP was also dismissed, with the Supreme Court reiterating the necessity for compliance with the earlier orders. In its ruling, the Supreme Court directed the Union of India to clear the arrears owed to the applicant within a period of six months from the date of the order, thereby SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.22 reinforcing the applicant's entitlement to the revised pay scale and associated benefits.
21. It is a cardinal principle of judicial discipline, as established by the Apex Court in the case of S.I. Rooplal vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi (2000) 1 SCC 644 that precedents must be strictly adhered to. The Apex Court has unequivocally stated the following:-
"At the outset, we must express our serious dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which a coordinate Bench of the tribunal has overruled, in effect, an earlier judgment of another coordinate Bench of the same tribunal. This is opposed to all principles of judicial discipline. If at all, the subsequent Bench of the tribunal was of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the coordinate Bench of the same tribunal was incorrect, it ought to have referred the matter to a larger Bench so that the difference of opinion between the two coordinate Benches on the same point could have been avoided. It is not as if the latter Bench was unaware of the judgment of the earlier Bench but knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the said judgment against all known rules of precedents. Precedents which enunciate rules of law from the foundation of administration of justice under our system. This is a fundamental principle which every Presiding Officer of a Judicial Forum ought to know, for consistency in interpretation of law alone can lead to public confidence in our judicial system. This Court has laid down time and again precedent law must be followed by all concerned; deviation from the same should be only on a procedure known to law. A subordinate court is bounded by the enunciation of law made by the superior courts. A coordinate Bench of a Court cannot pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of law made by another Bench. It can only refer it to a larger Bench if it disagrees with the earlier pronouncement. "
22. It is settled law that once a benefit has been granted to a specific group of employees, that same benefit must be extended to those who are similarly situated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has affirmed this principle in the following judgments:-
Amrit Lal Berry vs Collector Of Central Excise, (1975) 4 SCC 714:
"We may, however, observe that when a citizen aggrieved by the action of a Government Department has approached the Court and obtained a declaration of law is his favour, others, in like circumstances, should be able to rely on the sense of responsibility of the Department concerned and to expect that they will be given the benefit of this declaration without the need to take their grievances to Court."
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.23 Inder Pal Yadav Vs. Union of India, 1985 (2) SCC 648:
"...those who could not come to the court need not be at a comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in here. If they are otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled to similar treatment if not by anyone else at the hands of this Court."
V CPC report, para 126.5 - Extending judicial decision in matters of a general nature to all similarly placed employees:
" We have observed that frequently, in cases of service litigation involving many similarly placed employees, the benefit of judgment is only extended to those employees who had agitated the matter before the Tribunal/Court. This generates a lot of needless litigation. It also runs contrary to the judgment given by the Full Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in the case of C.S. Elias Ahmed & Ors Vs. UOI & Ors, (OA 451 and 541 of 1991), wherein it was held that the entire class of employees who are similarly situated are required to be given the benefit of the decision whether or not they were parties to the original writ. Incidentally, this principle has been upheld by the Supreme Court in this case as well as in numerous other judgments like G.C. Ghosh V. UOI [(1992) 19 ATC 94 (SC)], dt. 20.07.1998; K.I. Shepherd V. UOI [(JT 1987 (3) SC 600)]; Abid Hussain V. UOI [(JT 1987 (1) SC 147], etc. Accordingly, we recommend that decisions taken in one specific case either by the judiciary or the Government should be applied to all other identical cases without forcing other employees to approach the court of law for an identical remedy or relief. We clarify that this decision will apply only in cases where a principle or common issue of general nature applicable to a group or category of Government employees is concerned and not to matters relating to a specific grievance or anomaly of an individual employee."
23. In a latter case of Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Assn (Direct Recruit) Vs. State of UP (2006) 10 SCC 346, the Apex Court has referred to the decision in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. C. Lalitha, 2006 (2) SCC 747, as under:-
"29. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently."
24. So for as the relief claimed by the applicants in the present case is concerned, the recommendations can be implemented from 01.01.1996 or from the date they were actually made. It is established that the decision to upgrade the pay scales was based on the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission's report, which was SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.24 implemented effective from 01.01.1996. However, the Office Memorandum (OM) regarding the pay scales for Inspectors and Superintendents of both the CBDT and CBEC was issued and implemented from 21.04.2004.
25. In light of the foregoing analysis and the principles of service jurisprudence articulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as the recommendation of the Special Anomaly Committee, it is evident that the denial of retrospective application of the revised pay scales for the applicants, who are similarly situated to officers in other departments, constitutes a violation of the principle of equality and fair treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
26. The applicants have demonstrated that their counterparts in departments such as the Railway Accounts and Postal Accounts have successfully received the benefits of upgraded pay scales effective from 01.01.1996, thereby reinforcing the argument that the applicants, in this case, are entitled to the same treatment. The precedents established in OA No. 86/2008 and OA No. 397/2009 further affirm the applicants' entitlement to a notional enhancement of their pay scales from 01.01.1996, given that the underlying rationale for the pay revision stems from the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission, which became effective from that date.
27. Moreover, the various judicial pronouncements emphasize the necessity for uniform application of benefits across similarly situated employees, mitigating the inequity that arises when distinct treatments are applied arbitrarily. The recommendations made by the Special Anomaly Committee for the applicants' pay scales underscore this necessity for equitable treatment.
28. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed and the impugned orders dated 23.08.2023 and 21.04.2004 passed by the respondents are quashed. The respondents are directed to grant the SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.25 revised pay scales for Inspectors and Superintendents of Excise to the applicants with effect from 01.01.1996 along with all consequential benefits, including payment of arrears of salary and other emoluments from that date up to 21.04.2004 with applicable interest. The respondents shall complete the necessary implementation within a period of three months from the date of this order.
29. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of. The registry will take appropriate action in this regard for removing the M.As.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA