Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
R Sowmyanarayanan And Others vs Central Board Of Excise And Custom ... on 11 March, 2026
1 OA 345/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00345/2025
Dated, the 11th day of March, Two Thousand Twenty Six
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR.M.SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER (J)
&
HON'BLE MR.M.L.SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (A)
O.A 345 of 2025
1.R. Sowmyanarayanan
2.P. Selvaraj
3.A.Mathiyarasu
4.S. Ganesh Kumar
5.R. Lakshmanan
6.S. Bhuvaneswari
7.M. Kannan
8.S. Vetriselvi
9.S. Santhanam
10.J. Ilango
11.V. Soundara Pandian
12.M. Jeyasooriya
13.V. Alagarasan
14.K.R. Parthasarathy
15.A.Ganesan
16.A.Selvaraj,
17.S. Ajit Kumar
18.S. Sundararaj
19.S. Kalaiselvan
20.M. Mohan
21.S. Narayanan
22.K.S. Gopal
23.V. Vaithehi
24.M. Seethalakshmi
25.S. Ramalingam
26.M. Anbalagan
27.Cecilila Parthasarathi
28.S. Thirumalraj
29.Shivnath Hembrom
30.V. Anburaju
2 OA 345/2025
31.V. Balu
32.K. Bharathy Balasubramanian
33.C.M.Bageerathi
34.M. Shanaz Begum
35.D. Veeramani
36.Alka Pratap .........Applicants
By Advocate M/s.P.Ayyamperumal
Vs
1.The Union of India,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi-110 001
Represented by its Secretary
2.Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001 Rep. by its Chairman
3.Department of Expenditure,
Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110 001
Represented by its Secretary
4.The Principal Chief Commissioner of GST & Central Excise,
No.26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.
5.Principal Commissioner of Customs (General)
Chennai VIII Commisionerate, Customs House,
No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.
6.The Chief Commissioner of Customs,
Chennai Zone, Customs House,
No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.
7.Principal Commissioner of CGST (North)
No.26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.
8.Commissioner (CGST) (South)
692, Anna Salai, M.H.U. Complex,
Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.
9.Commissioner of CGST,
No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment,
Tiruchirappalli - 610 001.
3 OA 345/2025
10.Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment,
Tiruchirappalli - 610 001.
11.Commissioner of Customs
Customs House, Beach Road,
Tuticorin - 628 004
12.Commissioner of CGST
C.R. Building, B.B. Kulam,
Madurai - 625 002.
13.Commissioner (CGST) Audit-I
1775, J.N. Inner Ring Road,
Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai - 600 101.
14.Commissioner of CGST (Audit-II)
692, Anna Salai, M.H.U. Complex,
Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.
15.Commissioner (CGST)
No.1, Foulks Compound Anaimedu,
Salem - 636 001.
16.Principal Commissioner of Customs
Chennai-I Air Port Commte. New Customs House,
Meenambakkam, Chennai - 600027 ..........Respondents
By Advocate Mr.Su.Srinivasan
4 OA 345/2025
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr.M.L.SRIVASTAVA, Member(A)) The applicants have filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"(A). This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for records and proceedings of the case which led to the passing of the orders i.e. (i) Office Memorandum in File No.6/37/98-IC dated 21.04.2004 i.e.Annexure-A1 and (ii) Office Memorandum in File No.A-
26017/65/2003-Ad.II-A(Pt) dated 11.05.2004 i.e. Annexure A2 and its subsequent (latest) Office Memorandum in File No.A-26017/65/2003- Ad.II-A(Pt) dated 25.07.2023 i.e. Annexure A3 (iii) speaking Order No.294/2024 dated 24.06.2024, issued under F.No.II/ (39)/OTH/2867/2023-ESTT, passed by the 5 respondent herein in th respect of 2 applicants (Annexure-A ) (iv) speaking order dated 25.07.2024 issued under F.No.GCCO/II/24/4/2024-CAO-O/o PrCC-CGST- ZONE-Chennai, passed by 4th respondent (Annexure A- ) herein in respect of 27 applicants and after going through their propriety, legality and constitutional validity be pleased to quash and set aside the same only to the extent it makes the revised pay scale effective from 21.04.2004 instead of 0.01.1996, with further directions to the respondents to grant the benefit of revised scale/grade w.e.f. 01.01.1996 with appropriate pay and pension fixation and actual benefit i.e. grant of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to Inspector (Central Excise, Preventive Officers/Examiners of Customs) and Rs.7500-12000/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to Superintendent/Appraiser (Central Excise & Customs), as requested vide their representations (Annexure A4-A ), along with actual arrears of pay and pension with 18% interest thereon.
(B). The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to hold and declare that the impugned action of the respondents to revise the pay scale from 21.04.2004 (Annexure-A1) is absolutely arbitrary and illegal and accordingly hold, declare and direct the respondents that the Inspectors/ Preventive Officers/ Examiners and Superintendents (Central Excise & Customs)/ Appraisers are entitled to the revised pay scales of Rs.6500- 10500 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to Inspector/ Preventive Officers/ Examiners (Central Excise & Customs) and Rs.7500-12000/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to Superintendent/ Appraisers (Central Excise & Customs) with all consequential benefits i.e. proper pay fixation, pension fixation, actual arrears of salary, pension and other retiral dues with 18% interest thereon.
5 OA 345/2025(C ) Any other and further additional orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case may be passed.
(D). Cost of the application be provided for."
2. The facts leading to the filing of the case are as follows:
The applicants either joined as Inspectors in the Central Excise & Customs Department or were promoted from lower post to the post of Inspectors and from Inspectors promoted to the post of Superintendents during the period from 01.01.1996 to 21.04.2004.
Prior to 01.01.1996, the pay scale of Inspectors/Preventive Officers/Customs Examiners was Rs. 1640-2900. On promotion to the post of Superintendent/Appraiser, the applicable pay scale was Rs.
2000-3500. Upon implementation of the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission, the pay scale of Inspectors/Customs Examiners/Preventive Officers was revised to Rs. 6500-200-10500, and that of Superintendents/Appraisers was revised to Rs. 7500- 12000. However, the revised pay scales were made effective from 21.04.2004 instead of 01.01.1996, the date on which the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission came into effect.
Despite various decisions rendered by Tribunals and High Courts across the country, and finally by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the benefit of the revised pay scales of Rs. 6500-10500 for Inspectors/Customs Examiners/Preventive Officers and Rs. 7500-12000 for Superintendents/Appraisers was denied to the applicant. Hence, the 6 OA 345/2025 present OA.
3 The learned Counsel for the applicant invited our attention to the common order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 1089/2019 & batch, which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in W.P.(C) No. 10490/2024 by order dated 09.08.2024, and thereafter affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Diary No. 59005/2024 by order dated 28.02.2025. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 154/2015 dated 11.01.2022, which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16035/2022 dated 20.10.2023 and subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2944/2024 by order dated 09.09.2024. In the said order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it agreed with the view taken by the Tribunal that the respondents/employees were discriminated against in the matter of grant of benefits under the 5th Central Pay Commission, and that they were entitled to the revised pay scale with effect from 01.01.1996 in order to bring them on par with similarly situated employees. Accordingly, directions were issued to the concerned department to clear the arrears within six months from the date of the order.
4. He further drew our attention to paragraphs 22 to 24 of the 7 OA 345/2025 judgment dated 09.08.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in W.P. No. 10490/2024. In paragraph 22, the Court recorded that, pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court at Kolkata dated 03.05.2023 in W.P.(C.T.) No. 21 of 2015, a Special Anomaly Committee was constituted with the approval of the competent authority to consider the representations made therein. Based on the recommendations of the said Committee, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) issued an order dated 22.09.2023 enhancing the pay scale notionally with effect from 01.01.1996 in respect of the respondents in that Writ Petition.
5. In paragraph 23, it was noted that the learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the Department of Expenditure, vide I.D. No. 7.2.2008-IC dated 16.05.2024, had advised CBDT to consult the Department of Legal Affairs/ASG for filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 08.12.2023 in W.P. No. 9649 of 2012 along with a stay application. However, no material was placed before the Court to show that the orders passed by various Benches of the Tribunal and High Courts had been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court or that any stay had been granted.
6. In paragraph 24, the Hon'ble High Court held that once a Special Anomaly Committee had been constituted in CBDT pursuant to the 8 OA 345/2025 orders of the Kolkata High Court, and its recommendations had been implemented retrospectively with effect from 01.01.1996, there was no necessity to constitute a separate Special Anomaly Committee for CBIC, particularly when both CBDT and CBIC function under the common Department of Revenue.
7. The learned Counsel also relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C. Sharma v. Union of India & Ors., 1997 (3) SCT 341; Union of India & Ors. v. Lalita S. Rao & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1972; Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India, (1985) 2 SCC 648; Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2000 (2) SCT 54; and Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Association (Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P., (2006) 10 SCC 346, to contend that in view of the order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2944/2024, the respondents were bound to grant the benefit of upgradation of pay under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 with effect from 01.01.1996 and not from 21.04.2004.
8. Reference was further made to the letter, dated 16.06.2025 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, New Delhi, whereby the upgraded pay scale under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 was directed to be extended with effect from 01.01.1996 to the applicants in several OAs, including OA Nos. 9 OA 345/2025 1088/2019, 236/2024, 238/2024, 213/2020, 237/2024, 403/2024, 10490/2024 and 350/453/2024. It was submitted that, in light of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the subsequent implementation by the department, there was no justification for confining the benefit of the revised pay scale to a limited group of employees.
9. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on various orders passed by different Benches of this Tribunal, particularly the order dated 03.11.2025 passed by the Kolkata Bench in OA No. 1154/2025, wherein it was categorically held that the judgments in question were judgments in rem and not in personam, and therefore applicable to all similarly situated employees, including the applicant therein.
10. It was further submitted that neither CBIC nor CBDT had challenged the earlier orders passed by various Benches of the Tribunal across the country granting notional fixation of pay scales with effect from 01.01.1996, and that the same had been accepted and implemented. Consequently, the respondents cannot now raise the issue of pay parity, which is not the subject matter of the present proceedings. The core issue for determination is whether the enhanced/revised pay scales are to be granted with effect from 01.01.1996, i.e., the date of implementation of the 5th Central Pay Commission, or from 21.04.2004, i.e., the date of issuance of the 10 OA 345/2025 Office Memorandum.
11. It was also pointed out that several orders passed by different Benches of this Tribunal--implemented by the respondents--have resulted in the grant of benefits to more than 1,500 applicants across the country. A tabulated list of such OAs, along with the dates of orders, the respective Benches, and the dates of implementation, has been placed on record. The same is reproduced as hereunder:
OA No. Date of Bench Date of
Order Implementation
65/2023 07.02.2023 Chandigarh 06.08.2025
1088/2019 09.01.2024 Hyderabad 16.06.2025
236/2024 18.03.2024 Hyderabad 16.06.2025
238/2024 18.03.2024 Hyderabad 16.06.2025
1805/2024 06.08.2024 Principal Bench 29.07.2025
1317/2022 11.12.2024 Chandigarh 29.07.2025
1158/2022 11.12.2024 Chandigarh 29.07.2025
113/2024 11.12.2024 Chandigarh 06.08.2025
67/2023 07.02.2025 Chandigarh 06.08.2025
68/2024 25.06.2025 Cuttack 27.08.2025
619/2022 10.07.2025 Jabalpur 06.08.20285
978/2022 10.07.2025 Jabalpur 06.08.2025
1038/2024 10.07.2025 Jabalpur 06.08.2025
719/2025 11.07.2025 Chennai 03.12.2025
121/2024 28.07.2025 Cuttack 27.08.2025
311/2025 04.08.2025 Ahmedabad 24.11.2025
353/2025 12.08.2025 Ahmedabad 24.11.2025
900/2025 25.08.2025 Chennai 03.12.2025
255/2025 28.08.2025 Guwahati 24.11.2025
11 OA 345/2025
426/2025 26.09.2025 Ahmedabad 24.11.2025
416/2024 03.11.2025 Kolkata 03.12.2025
421/2024 03.11.2025 Kolkata 03.12.2025
425/2024 03.11.2025 Kolkata 03.12.2025
1262/2025 15.12.2025 Kolkata 28.01.2026
421/2025 16.12.2025 Ahmedabad 28.01.2026
12. It was submitted that CBIC, being the apex body of the department, has accepted and implemented these judicial pronouncements. In view of the above submissions and precedents, the applicants have prayed for grant of the reliefs sought in the present Original Application.
13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants and relied entirely upon the reply statement filed. It was contended that the cause of action, if any, arose either on 01.01.1996 or, at the latest, on 21.04.2004, when the relevant policy decisions attained finality. The applicants failed to challenge the same within the period prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In this regard, reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra v. Udham Singh Kamal, wherein, after extracting Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, it was held that in the absence of an application under sub-section (3) of Section 21 seeking condonation of delay, the 12 OA 345/2025 Tribunal had no jurisdiction to admit and decide the Original Application on merits. The Apex Court observed that an OA filed after three years from the original cause of action could not have been entertained in view of the statutory mandate under Section 21(1) of the Act.
14. It was further contended that the applicants are "fence-sitters"
who have approached this Tribunal belatedly, seeking retrospective upgradation of pay with effect from 01.01.1996 only after similar relief had been granted by other Benches of the Tribunal and certain High Courts. It is well settled that subsequent judgments in unrelated cases or administrative instructions issued for implementation thereof do not furnish a fresh or continuing cause of action so as to extend or revive limitation. In support of this proposition, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. S.M. Kotrayya, wherein the Special Leave Petition was allowed and the orders of the High Court and Tribunal were set aside. The Apex Court held that an Original Application filed with delay, solely on the basis of a judgment obtained by a similarly situated person, was not maintainable, and that belated claims by persons who failed to approach the appropriate forum within a reasonable time cannot be sustained merely on grounds of parity.
15. The learned counsel further submitted that the judgment of the 13 OA 345/2025 Patna High Court in W.P.(C) No. 11452 of 2005 dated 09.04.2010, which was subsequently relied upon by various Benches of the Tribunal and certain High Courts, contained a direction for extension of benefits to similarly situated persons. However, when the matter was carried before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition, the Apex Court, while dismissing the SLP by order dated 03.04.2013, clarified that the relief granted by the Patna High Court would remain confined to the parties before the Tribunal and the High Court. It was specifically observed that the claims of other persons would have to be considered independently, as and when they approach the appropriate forum, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.It was argued that nearly two decades have elapsed since the decision of the Patna High Court, and the present applicant, having remained fence-sitters for all these years, cannot now seek parity with those who were diligent in pursuing their remedies. In view of the settled law on stale claims and fence-sitters, the present Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
16. The respondents further submitted that the applicants have relied upon the dismissal of SLP (Civil) Diary No. 59005 of 2024 dated 28.02.2025, filed by the Union of India against the judgment of the High Court for the State of Telangana in W.P. No. 10499 of 2024. It was contended that dismissal of a Special Leave Petition at the 14 OA 345/2025 admission stage, without a speaking order, does not amount to affirmation of the judgment impugned therein, nor does it result in merger. In support of this submission, reliance was placed upon the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, wherein it was authoritatively held that dismissal of an SLP without a reasoned order does not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution and does not attract the doctrine of merger. It was further submitted that certain SLP dismissal orders and departmental proceedings implementing judicial directions were confined to the parties concerned and operated only in personam.
17. Finally, it was submitted that the present Original Application is wholly misconceived, not maintainable, and liable to be dismissed. The 5th Central Pay Commission had expressly rejected the demand for parity and upgradation of pay scales of Inspectors and Superintendents of the Revenue Departments vis-à-vis CBI/IB, and recommended only replacement scales. The subsequent upgradation granted with effect from 21.04.2004 was a conscious executive policy decision taken independently of the Pay Commission recommendations, with a specific cut-off date, and not as a rectification of any anomaly. It was further contended that both the 6th and 7th Central Pay Commissions reaffirmed this position and 15 OA 345/2025 declined any retrospective upgradation, finding no manifest error warranting such relief. The claims are also barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Repeated or belated representations do not revive a stale cause of action, and the applicants, having remained fence-sitters, cannot seek parity merely because others have succeeded in separate proceedings. The doctrine of continuing cause of action is inapplicable, as no case of wrongful pay fixation or pension computation has been specifically pleaded.
18. In support of the prayer for dismissal of the OA, reliance was placed upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
i) Union of India Vs. Arun Jyoti Kundu, 2007 (7) SCC 472;
(ii) State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, 1989 (1) SCC 121;
iii) Union of India v. P.V. Hariharan, (1997) 3 SCC 568,
iv) Union of India Vs. Amarnath Goyal, (2005) 6 SCC 754;
(v) Judgment, dated 08.12.2023 of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court made in WP No 9649 of 2012 dated 8.12.2023;
vi) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (c) No 2944 of 2024 dated 09.09.2024.
19. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions and precedents, the learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the present Original Application.
20. We have heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel 16 OA 345/2025 for the parties were also carefully gone through by us.
21. The core issue arising for consideration in the present Original Application is whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of notional fixation of pay with effect from 01.01.1996 and consequential monetary benefits from the said date, or whether the actual financial benefits are payable only from 21.04.2004, in terms of the recommendations of the Anomaly Committee and the Office Memorandum issued thereunder.
22. The Inspectors' Association of the Income Tax Department had earlier filed OA No. 86 of 2008 before the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal seeking notional fixation of the enhanced pay scale with effect from 01.01.1996. The said OA was allowed by order dated 17.01.2012, wherein the respondents/Union of India were directed to issue necessary instructions for implementing the upgraded pay scale notionally from 01.01.1996 and to pay the consequential arrears of salary.
23. In the meanwhile, similarly situated employees had filed OA No. 397 of 2009 before the Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal, which was also decided in their favour. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents approached the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta by filing WPCT No. 21 of 2015. By order dated 03.05.2023, the Hon'ble High Court disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the Union of India to constitute a 17 OA 345/2025 Special Anomaly Committee to examine and decide the issue.
24. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta, a Special Anomaly Committee was constituted. The Committee examined the matter and recommended that the enhanced pay scale be granted notionally with effect from 01.01.1996 and actually from 21.04.2004. The said recommendation was accepted by the Government of India and communicated vide CBDT letter dated 22.09.2023.
25. Certain applicants, serving as Inspectors in the Central Excise Department, have contended that they are similarly situated to the applicants in OA No. 86 of 2008, as they were also affected by the very same Office Memorandum, dated 21.04.2004. They claim entitlement to notional pay fixation with effect from 01.01.1996 on grounds of parity. However, despite the decision of the Mumbai Bench in OA No. 86 of 2008, the respondent authorities, by order dated 28.12.2018, informed that the Department of Expenditure had not agreed to ante-date the effective date of the upgraded pay scale to 01.01.1996, even for the limited purpose of notional fixation.
26. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.12.2018, the applicants in OA No. 86 of 2008 and certain other similarly placed employees approached the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal by filing OA No. 1089 of 2019 and batch. The Tribunal, by common order, dated 09.01.2024, 18 OA 345/2025 allowed the said OAs and directed the respondents to grant the enhanced pay scale to Inspectors/Superintendents in the Central Tax and Customs Department notionally with effect from 01.01.1996 to all the applicants, along with consequential arrears.
27. Challenging the common order dated 09.01.2024 passed in OA No. 1089 of 2019 and batch, the respondents/Union of India approached the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad by filing Writ Petition No. 10490 of 2024. The said Writ Petition was dismissed vide its judgment, dated 09.08.2024. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
"24. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that once a special Anomaly Committee was constituted in CBDT pursuant to the orders of Kolkata High Court and based on the recommendations of the said Committee, when it was implemented retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.1996 in the CBDT, there is no need to constitute separate Special Anomaly Committee for the CBIC again since the Department of Revenue being the common for both the CBDT and CBIС.
25. Further, as per the Office Memorandum dated 06.02.1998, there will be two level Anomaly Committees, National and Departmental. The National Anomaly Committee deals with the common to two or more Departments and in respect of the common categories of employees; and that Departmental Anomaly Committee will deal with the Anomalies pertaining to exclusively to the Department concerned and therefore, CBDT and CBIC being two separate boards under the same Department of Revenue, the recommendations of Special Anomaly Committee constituted pursuant to directions of Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in W.P.(CT)No.21 of 2015 have to be applied to the entire Department.
26. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered 19 OA 345/2025 opinion that the Tribunal had rightly allowed the O.A.No.1089 of 2019 and batch vide order dated 09.01.2024 directing the petitioners herein to grant enhanced pay scale of Inspectors/Superintendents in the Central Tax and Customs Department from 01.01.1996 notionally to the respondents along with consequential arrears. The petitioners failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order; therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by this Tribunal."
28. The aforesaid judgment was further affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 59005/2024 vide judgment dated 09.10.2024. Consequently, the Order passed by the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1089 of 2019 has attained finality.
29. It is true that several litigations were instituted before different Benches of this Tribunal as well as before various Hon'ble High Courts, including the Bombay High Court, the Telangana High Court, and the High Court at Calcutta (Kolkata), on the same issue. Orders were passed in favour of the respective employees; however, all such orders were rendered in personam, including the Order dated 03.05.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta (Kolkata) in W.P.C.T. No. 21 of 2015. As the present applicants were not parties to those proceedings, they were not extended the benefit of the subsequent decision of the Government of India vide letter dated 22.09.2023.
30. With regard to the issue of delay and laches in approaching this Tribunal, the applicants have contended that pay fixation constitutes a recurring cause of action in terms of the settled propositions laid down 20 OA 345/2025 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is observed that multiple litigations were pursued before various judicial fora, and upon conclusion of prolonged proceedings, a Special Anomaly Committee--constituted pursuant to the judgment dated 03.05.2023 in W.P.C.T. No. 21 of 2015 by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta--submitted its report only on 22.09.2023. Thereafter, the present applicants approached this Tribunal seeking benefits similar to those granted to other similarly situated employees.
31. It is also noted that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, while passing an Order in a similar matter in W.P. (C) No. 15760/2023 dated 23.01.2024, held that there was no requirement for the applicants therein to file an application for condonation of delay. Reference was made to paragraph 14 of the said judgment, which reads as under:
"14. Despite the aforesaid position emerging from the record that the impugned order is based on an earlier order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. 527/2015, which order dated 16.08.2022 has attained finality, we have still examined the matter on merits but find no reason to differ with the learned Tribunal. We are of the view that taking into account the admitted position that it is only pursuant to the recommendations made by the 5th CPC, which were duly accepted by the Government, that the pay scale of the respondents was enhanced on 19.02.2003, the necessary corollary thereof was to grant all the benefits to the respondents on actual basis from the date, the recommendations were accepted. Once the government chose to accept the recommendations of the 5th CPC, it was not permissible for the petitioners to take a view that actual benefits will not be granted w.e.f., 01.01.1996. Furthermore, once the benefits of the higher replacement scale being extended to similarly placed employees 21 OA 345/2025 was not only covered by the decision of the Ernakulum Bench in 2006, but also by the Patna High Court and by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 527/2015, we are of the view that the respondents are also entitled to receive the same benefits. In fact, after the series of these decisions by different Courts, the petitioners were expected to itself extend the benefits to all similarly placed employees including the respondents herein. We, are, therefore of the considered view that in this factual matrix, it cannot be said that the claim of the respondents was barred by delay or latches."
32. With reference to the issue of the judgment to be applied in 'personam' or in 'rem' the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka & Others Vs. C. Lalitha reported in (2006) 2 SCC 747 held in Para 29 that "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." Therefore, it is a settled law that once a benefit has been granted to a set of employees, the same benefit has to be extended to other similarly placed persons.'
33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment,dated 09.12.2024 in the case of Lt. Col Suprita Chandel Vs Union of India, in Civil Appeal No.1943/2022, observed in Para No.15 as under:
15. In K.L. Shephard & Others Vs Union of India & Others reported in (1987) 4 SCC 431, this court while reinforcing the above principle held as under:
"19. The writ petitions and the appeals must succeed. We set aside the impugned judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and direct that each of the three transferee banks should take over the excluded employees on the same terms 22 OA 345/2025 and conditions of employment under the respective banking companies prior to moratorium. The employee would be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service for all purposes including salary and perks throughout the period. We leave it open to the transferee banks to take such action as they consider proper against these employees in accordance with law. Some of the excluded employees have not come to Court. There is no justification to penalise them for not having litigated. They too shall be entitled to the same benefits as the petitioners........"
34. This view was fortified by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in paras 15 to 17 of its Judgment, dated 11.08.2025 in W.P.No.33537/2023, as under:
"15. Treating similarly situated persons dissimilarly is anathematic to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As rightly held by the Tribunal, being a model employer, the writ petitioners ought to have implemented the orders of the Supreme Court across the bar, without waiting for a person to approach the court. They need not have waited for a litigation to be commenced for the purpose of granting a relief to the second respondent, which he was otherwise entitled to.
16. Furthermore, this court while dealing with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, does not sit, as a court of appeal. The scope of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is supervisory or visitorial. This Court is concerned only about the decision-making process and not with the decision itself. We do not find the order of the Tribunal to be so unreasonable to require interference on our part.
17. The Tribunal has applied the right principles of law to the facts before it and has rendered justice between the parties. That being the position, we do not find any reason to interfere. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed."23 OA 345/2025
35. In the light of the referred judicial pronouncements as well as the recommendation of the Special Anomaly Committee, it is evident that denial of retrospective application of the revised pay scales for the applicant, who is similarly situated with the officers of other departments constitutes a violation of the principles of equality and fair treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court have time and again emphasized the necessity for uniform application of benefits across similarly situated employees, mitigating the inequity that arises when distinct treatments are applied arbitrarily. In the present case, we find that the recommendations made by the Special Anomaly Committee for fixation of the applicant's pay scales underscore this necessity for equitable treatment.
36. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is submitted that the various orders passed by the Hon'ble Courts, as referred to hereinabove, are judgments in rem, applicable to all similarly situated employees, including the applicant in the present Original Application. Such judgments cannot be construed as judgments in personam confined only to the individual litigants therein.
37. It is further placed on record that certain similarly placed applicants had approached this Chennai Bench in OA Nos. 580/2025 and 990/2025 by submitting representations on the same issue. This 24 OA 345/2025 Tribunal, by order dated 25.08.2025, directed the respondents to consider and dispose of the said representations within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Even in such situation, the respondents have implemented the order of granting the relief to those applicants.
38. In these circumstances, when this Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Courts have unequivocally held that the relevant orders operate in rem, and when the respondent department has accepted and implemented such orders, the question arises whether the respondent department is legally competent to unilaterally (suo motu) reinterpret or treat those binding decisions as being in personam, according to its discretion. Such action on the part of the respondent department is liable to be held arbitrary, unsustainable in law, and contrary to settled judicial principles.
39. This brings us to the next issue, namely, whether restricting the benefit to the applicant from 21.04.2004, despite the anomaly having arisen from 01.01.1996, can withstand judicial scrutiny. Various Benches of this Tribunal have consistently taken the view that when an anomaly is rectified with effect from 01.01.1996, the consequential monetary benefits must ordinarily flow from that date.
40. However, it is noted that the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal, in OA No. 1089/2019, by order dated 09.01.2024, directed the 25 OA 345/2025 respondents to grant enhanced pay on a notional basis from 01.01.1996 and actual monetary benefits from 21.04.2004. The said order was affirmed by the Hon'ble Telangana High Court by judgment dated 09.08.2024 and was further upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by judgment dated 09.10.2024.
41. In light of the above circumstances and in consequence thereof, the orders impugned in the OA are liable to be set aside and the same are accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to refix the pay of the applicant with effect from 01.01.1996 in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997, and to grant consequential benefits in the grades of Inspector and Superintendent on a notional basis with effect from 01.01.1996 and on an actual monetary basis from 21.04.2004 with all consequential benefits including pensionary benefits. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
42. In the result, the OA is allowed on the terms indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(M.L.SRIVASTAVA) (M.SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER (J)
MT 11.03.2026
Digitally signed by
THANGAM M THANGAM M
Date: 2026.04.02 11:02:04
+05'30'