Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Partha Pratim Mukherjee vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... on 3 November, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
No.O.A.350/417/2024 Date of Hearing : 22.09.2025
Date of Order : 03.11.2025
Present : Hon'ble Mrs. Urmita Datta Sen, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member
1. Partha Pratim Mukherjee
2. Yogabrata Roy Chowdhury
3. Badal Chandra Bairagi
4. Manojit Majumder
5. Sunil Kumar Mandal
6. Diptendu Chowdhury
7. Ashim Chatterjee
8. Debasish Mukhopadhyay
9. Soumitra Roy Chowdhuri
10. Tapan Kumar Rajak
11. Buddhadev Ganguly
12. Chanchal Bhattacharya
13. Apurba Bandyopadhyay
14. Pradip Ray
15. Mithiswari Das Sarkar
16. Sankar Kumar Basu
17. Saumen Choudhury
18. Sushanta Kumar Daw
19. Sukanta Chakraborty
20. Madhusudan Mukhopadhyay
21. Himadri Chakraborty
22. Milan Mondal
23. Puspen Joardar
24. Raj Kumar Sinha
25. Sonti Venkata Nageswar Kumar
26. Utpala Chakraborty
27. Amit Mondal
28. Sk. Ohab Ali
29. Nikhil Baran Das
30. Shuvendu Bikash Chandra
31. Adinath Majumdar
32. Tarup Kanti Ghosh
33. Basudev Panja
34. Bimal Kumar Konar
35. Subrata Sarkar
36. Dinabandhu Pramanick
37. Chittaranjan Mondal
Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=
133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone=
248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a0
52a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
BANDYOPADHYA f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439a
e01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
Reason: I am the author of this document
Y Location:
Date: 2025.11.14 02:41:47+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
2
38. Kunal Kanti Ghosh
39. Tapas Kumar Dutta
40. Subhasis Kar Choudhury
41. Santanu Bandyopadhyay
42. Gautam Mukherjee
43. Tarun Neogi
44. Shiba Prosad Sarkar
45. Kanchan Kanti Nandi
46. Arabinda Das
47. Samir Kumar Chakraborty
48. Kamal Kumar Saha
49. Manobrata Chakraborty
50. Raghu Ranjan Sarkar
51. Goutam Kumar Chanda
52. Pradip Kumar Halder
53. Dolan Chandra Chowdhury
54. Prabir Mukhopadhyay
55. Ranjan Kumar Chowdhury
56. Rajeev Sharma
57. Samir Kumar Mitra
58. Chandrachur Chattopadhyay
59. Silpi Dasgupta
60. Prabir Kumar Bhattacharyya
61. Salil Kumar Chaudhuri
62. Paritosh Saha
63. Ganesh Prasad Srivastava\
64. Gopal Chandra Das
65. Amitava Das Mazumdar
66. Achintya Bhattacharya
67. Sailapati Bhattacharyya
68. Timir Baran Nandy
69. Suhotra Sundar Das
70. Arpita Chatterjee
71. Banabir Saha
72. Prodyot Mukherjee
73. Dilip Kumar Kundu
74. Ashish Singharoy
75. Saqib Akhtar
76. Surya Bhushan Lal
77. Bidhan Chandra Sikdar
78. Subhendu Sanyal
79. Debdas Mukhopadhyay
80. Silpi Bandyopadhyay
81. Nabagopal Sarkar
82. Chandra Nath Das
83. Arpan Sardar
Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=
133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone=
248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a0
52a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
BANDYOPADHYA f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439a
e01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
Reason: I am the author of this document
Y Location:
Date: 2025.11.14 02:41:47+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
3
84. Surajit Kumar Saha
85. Sumit Kumar Datta
86. Sanjoy Biswas
87. Sabita Das
88. Amaya Baran Dey
89. Swapan Kumar Das
90. Debisankar Chakraborty
91. Mukul Bikash Ghatak
92. Shikha Bhattacharjee
93. Swapan Kumar Mondal
94. Sudhir Ranjan Das
95. Subir Kumar Dass
96. Avijit Saha
97. Malay Kumar Pal
98. Dipankar Bagchi
99. Tapas Ranjan Thakur
100.Dinesh Chandra Sarkar
101.Narayan Barman
102.Kalyan Kumar Majumder
103.Dipak Kumar Biswas
104.Goutam Chatterjee
105.Malay Ranjan Payne
106.Sudip Kumar Dutta
107.Santanu Goswami
108.Pranab Kumar Acharya
.......... Applicants
- VERSUS -
1. Union of India, service through the Secretary
to Government of India, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue, New Delhi -110001;
2. The Secretary, Government of India, Ministry
Of Finance, Department of Revenue
New Delhi - 110001;
3. The Chairman, Central Board of Indirect Tax
and Customs (CBIC), North Block, New Delhi
Pin-110001;
4. The Secretary, DoPT, North Block, New Delhi
Pin - 110001
..........Respondents
For the Applicants : Mr. F. Samim, counsel
Ms. G. Biswas, counsel
Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=
133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone=
248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a0
52a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
BANDYOPADHYA f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439a
e01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
Reason: I am the author of this document
Y Location:
Date: 2025.11.14 02:41:47+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
4
For the Respondents : Ms. E. Sinha, counsel
Mr. B.P. Banerjee, counsel
ORDER
Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member:
The applicants have preferred this O.A. under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
a) To quash and set aside impugned letter No.F.No.A-26017/65/2003-Ad.IIA dated 25.07.2023 issued by the respondent No.3 communicating denial of effect of OM No.F.No.6/37/98-IC dtd 21/04/2004 w.e.f. 01.01.1996;
b) May quash and set aside the OM dated 21.04.2004 to the extent it grants upgraded pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996;
c) To direct the respondents to extend the benefit of judgments relied upon and to grant upgraded pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 on actual basis since 5th CPC became operational;
d) To direct the respondents to disburse the arrear amount with interest accrued upon the revised pay w.e.f. 01.01.1996;
e) May pass such other order for the grant of relief to the applicants which it may deem fit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Brief facts of this case are as under:-
(a) The applicants herein worked as Inspectors and Superintendents under the respondents. Some of them were promoted to the posts of Executive Officers including the post of Assistant Commissioners of Central Excise (now Central GST) and Customs working under the Central Board of Indirect Tax and Customs (CBSC). According to the applicants, they were denied the benefits of enhanced pay scales notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and actually w.e.f. 21.04.2004, which were granted to the Income Tax Officers of Income Tax Department as well as the holders of the equivalent posts.
(b) After implementation of the Vth CPC w.e.f. 01.01.1996, parity between the Inspectors of CBI/IB and the Inspectors of Central Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65= 133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a0 52a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= BANDYOPADHYA f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439a e01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Y Location:
Date: 2025.11.14 02:41:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 5 Excise & Customs which had existed till the time of IVth CPC was disrupted and it significantly affected all the promotional posts in the hierarchy viz. Superintendents and Assistant Commissioners in the matter of scale of pay.
(c) The pay scale of the Inspectors in the Department prior to 1996 was on par with similar posts in the organized Accounts Department i.e, Senior Accounts Officer, Comptroller & Auditor General Department, Divisional Accountant, Labour Department, Section Officer, Central Secretariat Staff (CSS) Department, Assistant Grade, Railway Department, Accounts Staff, Income Tax Department, which were classified as Grade-C Non-Gazetted prior to 1996.
(d) Pursuant to the Vth Central Pay Commission in the year 1996, all the posts similar to the posts of Inspector of Central Excise & Customs Department were placed in the pay scale of Rs.5500-175-
9000/- as a result of which the parity between the Inspectors of CBI/IB and the Inspectors of Central Excise and Customs which had existed prior to 01.01.1996 was disrupted and it significantly affected all the promotional posts in the hierarchy viz. Superintendents and Assistant Commissioners in the matter of scale of pay.
(e) All India Federation of Central Excise Officers Association had filed O.A.No.45 of 1992 and O.A.No. 63 of 1997 before the Guwahati Bench of this Tribunal seeking payment of revised pay scales. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench vide orders dated 19.01.2001 in O.A.No.45 of 1992 and O.A.No. 63 of 1997 held that there was hostile discrimination in pay scales between the posts of Senior Auditors in IA & AD Department and the Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65= 133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a0 52a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= BANDYOPADHYA f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439a e01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Y Location:
Date: 2025.11.14 02:41:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 6 Assistants of Central Secretariat Staff (CSS) and directed to grant pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 (pre-revised), corresponding to revised pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/- The said order was challenged by the Department before the High Court of Guwahati and the Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati had confirmed the said order vide order dated 16.09.2022.
(f) Thereafter, the Secretaries of Expenditure, Joint Secretary (P) and OSD of Implementation Cell decided to grant higher grades on notional basis w.e.f. 01.01.1996 with actual payments being made prospectively in terms of formulation approved by the Group of Ministers for the Accounts Staff of Railways. Accordingly an Official Memo dated 28.02.2003 upgrading the pay scale of Senior Auditors notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and actual payment w.e.f. 19.02.2003 was issued. Thus, the pay scale of Assistants of CSS, who were in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/- (pre-revised) was enhanced to Rs.6500-10500/-w.e.f. 01.01.1996 notionally and effectively from 19.02.2003. The above benefit was notionally extended to w.e.f. 01.01.1996 uniformly to all posts, which were on par with Section Officer, but the actual date of payment varied from Department to Department.
(g) The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure had considered the matter and upgraded the pay scales of the posts under CBDT and CBEC under the Department of Revenue vide Order dated 21.04.2004 (Annexure A/1), whereby the existing pay scales of the posts of Income Tax Inspector, Inspector (Central Excise), Examiner (Customs) and Preventive Officer (Customs) were revised from 5500-9000 to 6500-10500 and the pay Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65= 133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a0 52a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= BANDYOPADHYA f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439a e01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Y Location:
Date: 2025.11.14 02:41:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 7 scales for the posts of Income Tax Officer, Appraiser (Central Excise), Superintendent (Central Excise), Superintendent (Customs Preventive) were revised from Rs.6500-10500 to Rs.7500-12000 with immediate effect i.e. from 21.04.2004, whereas the officers serving in other Central Government Departments on similar capacity were given such benefits retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.1996. This invited series of litigations in various benches of Central Administrative Tribunal and also in Hon'ble High Courts.
(h) The Inspector's Association of the Income Tax Department filed O.A.No.86 of 2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench seeking notional fixation of enhanced pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996, which was allowed vide order dated 17.01.2012 by directing the respondents therein to give necessary instructions for fixing the notional date of implementation w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and pay the arrears of salary.
(i) Thus, the applicants herein have claimed that being Inspectors in the Central Excise Department and being affected by the very same Office Memorandum dated 21.04.2004 are also entitled for notional pay fixation w.e.f. 01.01.1996 being the similarly situated persons with the applicants in the aforementioned O.A.No.86 of 2008.
However, despite the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in O.A.No.86 of 2008, the respondent authorities in the said O.A. vide Order dated 28.12.2018, informed that the Department of Expenditure did not agree for ante-dating the effective date of upgraded pay scale from 1996, at least for notional benefit.
Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65= 133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a0 52a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= BANDYOPADHYA f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439a e01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Y Location:
Date: 2025.11.14 02:41:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 8
(j) Aggrieved by the order dated 28.12.2018, the applicants in O.A.No.86 of 2008 and some others had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad by filing O.A.No.1089 of 2019 and batch. The Tribunal vide common order dated 09.01.2024 allowed the said OAs by directing the respondents to grant enhanced pay scale of Inspectors/ Superintendents in the Central Tax and Customs Department from 01.01.1996 notionally to all the applicants with consequential arrears.
(k) In the meantime, some other applicants, who were similarly situated and circumstanced had filed O.A.397 of 2009 before Calcutta Bench of this Tribunal, wherein order was issued in favour of the applicants. Challenging the said order of this Tribunal the respondents of the said O.A. had approached the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta by filing W.P.C.T. 21 of 2015, which was disposed of on 03.05.2023 (Annexure A/2) by directing the Union of India to constitute a Special Anomaly Committee to decide the issue.
Pursuant to the said order of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta, an Anomaly Committee was constituted, who had considered the matter and recommended enhanced pay scale notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and actually w.e.f. 21.04.2004, which was accepted by the Government of India vide CBDT's letter dated 22.09.2023 (Annexure A/3).
(l) However, aggrieved by the common order dated 09.01.2024, the respondents of the O.A.No.1089 of 2019 and batch approached Hon'ble Telangana High Court, Hyderabad by filing Writ Petition No.10490 of 2024, which was disposed of vide Order dated 09.08.2024. Relevant portion of the said Order reads as under:- Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65= 133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a0 52a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= BANDYOPADHYA f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439a e01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Y Location:
Date: 2025.11.14 02:41:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 9 "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 CBIC.
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 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.
27. The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs."
TheP aforesaid judgment was further upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No.59005/2024 vide Order dated 09.10.2024. Thus, the Order passed by the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.No. 1089 of 2019 has attained finality.
(m) The applicants in the instant O.A., being similarly situated and circumstanced with the applicants in the aforementioned cases, had filed representations to the authorities concerned praying for notional fixation of their pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and actual fixation from 21.04.2004 as accepted by the Government of India vide the Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65= 133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a0 52a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= BANDYOPADHYA f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439a e01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Y Location:
Date: 2025.11.14 02:41:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 10 aforementioned CBDT's letter dated 22.09.2023, but their case was rejected by the respondents. Hence this O.A.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondents has refuted the claim of the applicants in the following manner:-
(a) The applicants are not entitled to any relief based on the aforesaid cases as referred to above as they chose to remain silent/ fence sitters for a considerably long period after the cause of action arose. Therefore, this O.A. should be barred by limitation.
Moreover, their pay scale was revised vide policy decision dated 21.04.2004 in which severe financial implications were involved and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, courts/Tribunals should refrain themselves from interfering in economic policies of the Government. Therefore, the applicants' prayers are not tenable.
(b) Further, the issue of upgradation of pay scale of Superintendents/Inspectors working in CBDT and CBEC was considered in detail by the authorities in consultation with the Department of Expenditure and it was a policy decision by the Government of India to upgrade the pay scales of the Inspectors and Superintendents or their equivalents working in CBDT and CBEC w.e.f. 21.04.2004 vide O.M. issued on 21.04.2004(Annexure A/1) and not from 01.01.1996.
(c) It is true that several litigations were filed before different benches of this Tribunal and also before the Hon'ble High Courts such as Bombay High Court, Telangana High Court and the High Court at Calcutta on the same issue and orders were passed in favour of the employees concerned but all these orders were passed in Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65= 133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a0 52a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= BANDYOPADHYA f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439a e01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Y Location:
Date: 2025.11.14 02:41:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 11 personam including the order of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta dated 03.05.2023 in W.P.C.T. 21 of 2015. Since the present applicants were not parties in those matters, they could not be granted benefit of the subsequent decision of the Government of India vide letter dated 22.09.2023.
(d) The issue was once again examined by the Department of Expenditure but they did not agree to extend the benefit of enhanced pay scale to the officers of CBIC with retrospective effect from 01.01.1996 and issued an Office Order dated 25.07.2023. However, the Government of India had extended the benefit of enhanced pay scale only to those officers who had approached the Tribunals and also the Hon'ble High Courts.
(e) The principle of equal pay for equal work is not applicable to this case as the Expert Body during implementation of the Report of Vth CPC opined that the nature of work of the officers of CBDT and CBEC is different from that of the officers of CBI and Police. The matter was further considered in the VIth CPC and rejected by the Expert Body which was reflected in Para 7.15.16 of the VIth CPC's Report. Therefore, these applicants have no right to claim parity with the officers of CBI and Police. (f ) The respondents have also stated that in case the Tribunal decides to extend any relief to the applicants, arrear payment should be restricted to three years prior to filing of this O.A. in accordance with the settled law of the land and not with effect from 01.01.1996.
4. Heard Learned Counsel for both sides and perused the pleadings and documents placed on record.
Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65= 133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a0 52a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= BANDYOPADHYA f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439a e01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Y Location:
Date: 2025.11.14 02:41:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 12
5. The short question to be decided in this O.A. is whether the applicants can be granted the benefit of notional pay fixation w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and actually w.e.f. 21.04.2004.
6. At hearing, Learned Counsel for the applicants has reiterated the aforementioned facts as stated in Para 2 of this order and vociferously argued that the contentious issue i.e. the benefit of enhanced pay scale notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and actually w.e.f. 21.04.2004 is not more res integra in view of the following judgments and developments:-
a) Hon'ble Telengana High Court's Order, dated 09.08.2024 in W.P. No. 10490/2024.
(b ) Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order, dated 28.02.2025 dismissing the SLP, arising out of Hon'ble Telengana High Court's Order dated 09.08.2024.
(c) Hon'ble Calcutta High Court's Order, dated 19.03.2025 in W.P.C.T. No. 6 of 2025, arising out this Hon'ble Tribunal's Order, dated 23.01.2024 in O.A. No. 114 of 2024.
(d) Hon'ble Calcutta High Court's Order, dated 07.04.2025 in W.P.C.T. No. 49 of 2025, arising out of this Hon'ble Tribunal's Order, dated 16.04.2024 in O.A. No. 453 of 2024
(e) CBDT's letter, dated 17.05.2025 in implementation of Order of Hon'ble Kerala High Court dated 16.01.2024 passed in OP (CAT) No. 01/2023 and in connected cases "in personam".
(f) CBDT's letter, dated 18.06.2025 for extension of such benefit to the petitioners before Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 9649 of 2012.
(g) CBIC's letter dated 25.06.2025, which shows consultation with DoE for implementation of Hon'ble Bombay High Court Judgment, dated 09.08.2024 in W.P. No. 10490 of 2024 in the face of dismissal of SLP vide Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order dated 28.02.2025.
7. Learned Counsel for the applicants has brought on record a letter dated 04.09.2025, wherefrom it appears that some employees had approached the C.A.T., Chandigarh Bench on the similar issue. In Para 2 of the said letter dated 04.09.2025, it has been stated that the matter was examined in consultation with nodal Ministry and vide letter dated. 27.08.2025 directions had already been issued Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65= 133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a0 52a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= BANDYOPADHYA f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439a e01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Y Location:
Date: 2025.11.14 02:41:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 13 for implementation of orders of this Tribunal in O.A.No.363/2023 and O.A.No.392/2024 on 'in-personam' basis, not to be quoted as precedent referred to above. Accordingly, it was requested to implement the Court Orders passed by Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in respect of O.A.No.669/2023, O.A.No.1369/2022 and O.A.No.66/2023 also on 'in personam basis' and not to be quoted as precedent in respect of the applicants only, subject to condition that the zone(s) must ensure that the judgments in the above mentioned cases are similar to the judgment/order dated 09.01.2024 passed by C.A.T, Hyderabad Bench and upheld by Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, against which SLP was dismissed. A compliance report was also directed to be filed before the appropriate judicial forum under intimation to the Board. A copy of the letter dated 27.08.2025 has also been enclosed with the letter dated 04.09.2025, wherefrom it appears that the same decision was communicated to the CGST Chandigarh Zone/CGST Calcutta Zone, CGST Bhopal Zone, CGST Delhi Zone.
8. So far as the delay and laches in approaching the court is concerned, it has been stated by the applicants that pay fixation is a recurring cause of action in terms of the propositions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We find that in this matter several litigations were filed before various judicial forums and after prolonged litigations, a Special Anomaly Committee constituted as per judgment of the Hon'ble High Court At Calcutta dated 03.05.2023 in W.P.C.T.No.21 of 2015 submitted its report only on 22.09.2023, whereafter the applicants have approached this Tribunal claiming the similar benefits as granted to other similarly situated employees.
9. From perusal of the aforementioned letters dated 27.08.2025 and 04.09.2025, it is clear that all the orders passed by various Hon'ble Courts on the issue had already been implemented by the respondents in 2025 itself on in Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65= 133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a0 52a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= BANDYOPADHYA f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439a e01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Y Location:
Date: 2025.11.14 02:41:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 14 personam basis. Therefore, the contention of the respondents regarding limitation is not applicable.
10. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the respondents has referred to some judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and contended that the claim of the applicants is not tenable in view of the law laid down in the following cases:-
(i) State of Uttar Pradesh & Others Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others reported in (2015)1 SCC 347;
(ii) Union of India & Others Vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008)8 SCC 648;
(iii) State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Vs. Yogendra Shrivastava reported in (2010)12 SCC 538;
(iv) Asger Ibrahim Amin Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India reported in (2016)13 SCC 797;
(v) Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak Vs. Bavnagar Municipal Corporation reported in (2022) 18 SCC 144;
(vi) Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited & Another Vs. Balbir Kumar Walia & Others reported in (2021)8 SCC 784;
(vii) State of Maharashtra & Another Vs. Bhagwan & Others reported in (2022)4 SCC 193.
We find that the judgment of State of Uttarpradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in favour of the applicants, wherein it was held that "........normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by court, all other identically situated persons should be treated alike by extending same benefit since not doing so would amount to discrimination and be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution." Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65= 133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a0 52a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= BANDYOPADHYA f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439a e01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Y Location:
Date: 2025.11.14 02:41:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 15 The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Tarsem Singh (supra) is not applicable to the instant case, which is related to limitation. In this judgment, it has been observed that "Continuing wrong is a single wrong causing continuous injury and recurring /successive wrong on the other hand occurs periodically giving rise to distinct and separate cause of action". It has further been stated that "An exception to this principle is however the cases of continuing wrong which can be entertained despite delay but arrears should have been restricted to three years prior to filing of writ petition". Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak Vs. Bavnagar Municipal Corporation that the applicants would be entitled to get arrears only for three years prior to the date of filing of writ petitions. These judgments are distinguishable from the instant O.A. since in this case there was a continuous cause of action and the respondents have implemented the judgments of various courts in 2024 and 2025.
The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Vs. Yogendra Shrivastava is related to a completely different issue.
The next judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asger Ibrahim Amin Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India is related to the point of delay, which does not apply to the instant O.A. for the reasons already stated above. The subject matters of other two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred to by the Learned Counsel for the respondents i.e. Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited & Another Vs. Balbir Kumar Walia & Others and State of Maharashtra & Another Vs. Bhagwan & Others are completely different from the subject matter in the instant O.A., therefore, those judgments are not applicable to this case.
11. 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 Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65= 133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a0 52a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= BANDYOPADHYA f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439a e01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Y Location:
Date: 2025.11.14 02:41:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 16 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.
12. In the instant case, it is established that the decision to upgrade the pay scales of Inspectors of Customs and Superintendents and other equivalent posts was taken based on the report of the Vth CPC, which was given effect from 01.01.1996. The counterparts of the applicants under the same Ministry as well as in other departments such as Railway Accounts and Postal Accounts etc. had successfully received the benefits of upgraded pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996, whereas the applicants had not been given the same benefits from the said date for the reasons best known to the respondents.
13. 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 applicants, who are 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 applicants' pay scales underscore this necessity for equitable treatment.
14. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the various orders passed by Hon'ble Courts as referred to hereinabove are the judgments in Rem, which are applicable to all the similarly circumstanced employees including Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65= 133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a0 52a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= BANDYOPADHYA f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439a e01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Y Location:
Date: 2025.11.14 02:41:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 17 the applicants in the present O.A. and such judgments cannot be treated 'in personam'.
15. Accordingly, the impugned letter dated 25.07.2023 is quashed and set aside.
Respondents are directed to extend the benefits of fixation of pay to the applicants in the scale of Rs.6500-10500 and Rs.7500-Rs.12000/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 on notional basis and w.e.f. 21.04.2004 on actual basis with all consequential benefits as ordered vide F.No.C-18011/ASHIS CHAKRABORTY/2009 VNL/4743, dated 22.09.2023 including arrears of pay within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after verifying the date of joining of individual applicant.
16. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the O.A. stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Anindo Majumdar) (UrmitaDatta(Sen)
AdministrativeMember Judicial Member
Sb
Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=
133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone=
248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a0 52a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= BANDYOPADHYA f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439a e01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document Y Location:
Date: 2025.11.14 02:41:47+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0