Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Bhrigu Nath Yadav vs Central Goods And Services Tax (Cgst) on 10 March, 2026
1
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Bench Allahabad
****
Original Application No. 854/2025
This is the 10th Day of March,2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A)
1. Bhrigu Nath Yadav, aged about 61 years, son of Late Κ.Ρ. Yadav, R/o
1159/80C/9GH, Rajrooppur, Prayagraj-21-1016. Retired from
Superintendent (RETD), in the CGST & Central Excise, Div-I,
Allahabad.
2. Ram Achal, aged about 61 years, son of Late Jaggnath, R/o Village
Ari, Post Handia, Prayagraj. Retired.from Superintendent (RETD), in
the CGST & Central Excise, Div-II, Allahabad.
3. Vidhya Dhar Pandey, aged about 66 years, son of Late Lalta Prasad
Pandey, R/o HIG-61, Awas Vikas Colony, Yojana-2, Jhunsi, Prayagraj-
211019. Retired from Assistant Commissioner (RETD), in the CGST &
Central Excise, Div, Allahabad.
4. Rajendra Kumar, aged about 69 years, son of Late Dhanu Ram, R/o
B-32/102B, Rohit Nagar Naria, Varanasi-221005. Retired from Assistant
Commissioner (RETD), in the CGST & Central Excise, Div, Varanasi.
5. Dilip Kumar. Verma, aged about 65 years, son of Late Chandra
Mohan Verma, R/O SA17/128, A.T. Plot No.7, Ganpati Nagar Coloney,
Paharia Varanasi-221007. Retired from Assistant Commissioner
(RETD), in the Customs Division, Bareilly.
6. Prakash Narain, aged about 72 years, son of Late Mewa Lal, R/o
Chetganj Khandwanala, Imambara, Mirzapur. Retired from Assistant
Commissioner (RETD), in the CGST & Central Excise, Div, Mirzapur.
7. Andrew Navneet Haqq, aged about 62 years, son of Late V.L.B.
Haqq, R/o 75/80, Stanley Road, Prayagraj. Retired from Assistant
Commissioner (RETD), in the CSI Air Port Lucknow.
8. Harish Chandra Srivastav, aged about 72 years, son of Late Ram
Naresh Prasad, R/o 11/161, Khatri Tola, Azamgarh-276001. Retired
from Superintendent (RETD), in the CGST & Central Excise, Division,
Varanasi.
9. Om Prakash Srivastav, aged about 74 years, son of Late H.C.
Srivastav, R/o Flat No.F-3/IInd Floor, Saidham Apartment, Jagmal Ka
Hata, Rajrooppur, Prayagraj-211016. Retired from Superintendent
NEELAM KUMARI SINGH (RETD), in the CGST & Central Excise, Hdqrs, Allahabad.
2
10. Faizul Hasan, aged about 62 years, son of Late Ami Hasan, R/o
84/B, Chhitańpura, Near Pulia, Mau Nath Bhanjan, Mau-575101.
Retired from Superintendent (RETD), in the CGST & Central Excise,
Division, Azamgarh.
11. Hari Nath Dubey, aged about 64 years, son of Late Bráj Bihari
Dubey, R/o Village Ahiyal, Post Madhasiya, Azamgarh-276208. Retired
from Superintendent (RETD), in the CGST & Central Excise, Division,
Azamgarh.
12. Brijendra Swaroop Srivastav, aged about 68 years, son of Late P.P.
Srivastav, R/o 269/S, Shakti Nagar Colony, Bashratpur, Aam Bazar,
Gorakhpur-273003. Retired from Superintendent (RETD), in the
Customs Division, Gorakhpur.
13. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, aged about 63 years, son of Late Shiv Narayan
Sinha, R/o 1/14/57A, Hausila Nagar, Civil Lines, Faizabad-224001.
Retired from Superintendent (RETD), in the CGST & Central Excise,
Div, Faizabad.
14. Umesh Chandra, aged about 62 years, son of Late Ram Sumer, R/o
1/14/118, Hausila Nagar, Civil Lines, Faizabad-224002. Retired from
Superintendent (RETD), in the CGST & Central Excise, Div, Faizabad.
15. Kandhai Lal Gupta, aged about 62 years, son of Late Bansi Lal
Gupta, R/o 1279-B, Kidwai Nagar, Allahapur, Prayagraj-211006.
Retired from Superintendent (RETD), in the CGST & Central Excise,
Div-I, Allahabad.
16. RavinderNath Rai, aged about 73 years, son of Late Shri Jai Ram,
R/o B-27/28A-27K, Kabir Nagar, Durgakund, Varanasi-221005. Retired
from Superintendent (RETD), in the CGST & Central Excise, Div.,
Varanasi.
17. Shree BhushanShukla, aged about 72 years, son of Late K.N. Shukla,
R/o 473A/117A, Alopi Bagh, Prayagraj-211006. Retired from
Superintendent (RETD), in the CGST & Central Excise Audit,
Allahabad.
18. Retired Varanasi. Babau Hawaldar Singh, aged about 74 years, son
of Late Hawaldar Singh, R/o S.10/55-K10, Geetanagar Colony, from
Superintendent (RETD), in the CGST & Central Excise, Div-I,
Allahabad. Hukulganj,
19. Roop Kamal Sonkar, aged about 56 years, son of Late Bhullan Ram,
R/o 601-AA-Anant Vihar, Lohiya Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad-211001.
Retired from Superintendent (VRS RETD), in the CGST & Central
Excise, Div, Raibarely.
20. Yogesh Chandra, aged about 66 years, son of Late S.I. Adip, R/o
NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 6/13/27A,Bada Ramna, Devkali Road, Faizabad. Retired from
Superintendent (RETD), in the CGST & Central Excise, Div., Faizabad.
3
21. Rajendra Prasad, aged about 63 years, son of Late Ram Raj, R/o LE
35 & 36, PDA Colony, Naini, Allahabad. Retired from Superintendent
(RETD), in the Customs (Pre) Div., Nautanwa.
22. Angad Kumar, aged about 60 years, son of Late Kashl Nath, R/o
Moh. Andhiyarbag, Ram Lila Maidan, Gorakhnath, Gorakhpur. Retired
from Superintendent (RETD), in the Customs (Pre) Div., Gorakhpur.
23. Manni Lal, aged about 61 years, son of Late Mohan Lal, R/o 1D/1C,
Prayag Station Road, Karanpur, Prayagraj. Retired from Superintendent
(RETD), in the CGST & Central Excise, Div-I, Allahabad.
24. Chandi Lal, aged about 80 years, son of Late Lakhan Lal, R/o
134/19, Jagmat Hata, Chack Niratul, G.T.B. Nagar, Allahabad. Retired
from Superintendent (RETD), in the CGST & Central Excise, Div-II,
Allahabad.
25. Nirmal Kumar Misra, aged about 69 years, son of Late Madan
Mohan Mishra, R/o 96, South Malaka, Prayagraj. Retired from
Superintendent (RETD), in the CGST & Central Excise, Hdqrs.
Allahabad.
26. Narendra Kumar Srivastav, aged about 67 years, son of Late Adya
Prasad Srivastav, R/o 665/557, Colonelganj, Prayagraj-211002. Retired
from Superintendent (RETD), in the Customs (Pre) Div., Lucknow.
27. Surendra Nath Singh, aged about 71 years, son of Late Hari Narain
Singh, R/o 1676/14K Ramaipatti, Tedhwa, Near Gita Lawn, Mirzapur-
231001. Retired from Superintendent (RETD), in the CGST & Central
Excise, Div., Mirzapur.
28. Sandeep Pandey, aged about 54 years, son of Dr. D.C. Pandey, R/o
1097/23/47/122F, North Allahpur, Allahabad-211006. Presently posted
as Superintendent, in the CGST & Central Excise, Appeals, Allahabad.
29. Ram Dular, aged about 58 years, son of Late Shri Murli Dhar, R/o
Village Sarai Fatte, Post Atrampur, Tehsil Prayagraj-221294. Presently.
posted Superintendent, in the CGST & Central Excise, Div., Soraon,
Faizabad,
30. K.K. Ojha, aged about 56 years, son of late Vinod Kumar Ojha, R/o
65b/2b, Beniganj, Prayagraj-211016. Presently posted as
Superintendent, in the CGST & Central Excise, Hdqrs, Allahabad.
31. Anand Kumar, aged about years, son of Late Chote Lal, R/o
17A/12E, Ganga Nagar, Lane-6, Rajapur, Allahabad-211001. Presently
posted as Superintendent, in the CGST & Central Excise, Div-II,
Allahabad.
32. Pradeep Kumar Srivastav, aged about 59 years, son of Late Jai
NEELAM KUMARI SINGH Mangal Prasad Srivastav, R/o 180A/2D, Baski Kalan, Daraganj;
4
Prayagraj-211006. Presently posted as Superintendent, in the CGST &
Central Excise, Hdqrs., Allahabad.
33. Arshad Ahmad Siddiqui, aged about 58 years, son of Late Atiq
Ahmad Siddiqui, R/o D-659, Kareli Scheme, Allahabad-211006.
Presently posted as Inspector, in the CGST & Central Excise, Appeals,
Allahabad.
34. Rajesh Kumar Singh, aged about 58 years, son of Late Ram Raj
Singh, R/o S/10558, Vikrak Khand Gomti Nagar Lucknow. Presently
posted as Inspector, in the LCS Banbasa Customs Division, Bareilly.
35. Khursheed Ahmad Khan, aged about 58 years, son of Late Abdul
Rasheed, R/o 419, Near Ambedkar Park, Dariyapur, Sultanpur-228001.
Presently posted as Inspector, in the CGST & Central Excise, Div.,
Faizabad.
36. Km. Soumya D/o Late Jeet Lal, aged about 66 years, wife of Late
Rasiley Lal, R/o B-12, Ekanki Kunj Colony, 24 Muir Road, Rajapur,
Allahabad-211001. Retired from Superintendent (RETD), in the CGST &
Central Excise, Hdqrs, Allahabad.
37. Smt. Karuna W/o Late Shailendra Kumar Verma, aged about 67
years, D/o Late Shashi Kumar Verma, R/o 1/23, MIG Avas Vikas
Colony, Yojana-3, Jhunsi, Allahabad. Retired from Superintendent
(RETD), in the CGST & Central Excise, Hdqrs, Allahabad.
38. Smt. Kusum Singh W/o Late Suresh Singh, aged about 69 years,
D/o Late Suresh Singh, R/o 19-Lane No.2,.. Bajrang Nagar Colony,
Pandeypur, Varanasi-221002. Retired from Superintendent (RETD), in
the CGST & Central Excise, Div., Varanasi.
39. Smt. Shyama Mishra W/o Late Ramesh Kumar Mishra, aged about
72 years, D/o Late Bhola Nath Misra, R/o 11-B, Belvedere Press
Compound, MLN Marg, Prayagraj-211002. Retired from
Superintendent (RETD), in the CGST & Central Excise, Hdqrs,
Allahabad.
40. Smt. Fauzia Khan W/o Late Mohd. Hadees Ali, aged about 62 years,
D/o Mohd. Haroon, R/o 65/C, Minto Road, Civil Lines, Allahabad-
211001. Retired from Assistant Commissioner (RETD), in the CGST &
Central Excise, Div., Jaunpur.
41. Smt. Javitri Devi W/o Late Lallan Tiwari, aged about 67 years, D/o
Late Rajkbali Tiwari, R/o 29 Nyay Nagar, Jhunsi, Prayagraj-211019.
Retired from Assistant Commissioner (RETD), in the Customs Division,
Gorakhpur.
42. Smt. Sarita Veena Das W/o Late Sanjeev Samul Das, aged about 63
years, D/o Late Anil Das, R/o St. Anns, The Residency, Flat 06, Plot 8-
NEELAM KUMARI SINGH A, Dwarka Sector-07, New Delhi-110075. Retired from Superintendent
(RETD), in the Customs Division, Nautanwa.
5
43. Smt. Phool Kumari W/o Late Sita Ram, aged about 71 years, D/o
Sita Ram R/o 37-D/2K/1, Kareli, Allahabad-211016. Retired from
Superintendent (RETD), in the CGST & Central Excise, Div-I,
Allahabad.
44. Smt. Champa Matlani D/o Late Chain Rai Wadhwani, aged about
59 years, R/o 3/21, Panchishila Colony, Behind CTO Compound,
Allahabad-211001. Presently posted as Superintendent, in the CGST &
Central Excise, Div-I, Allahabad.
45. Sabhajeet Yadav S/o Late B.R. Yadav, aged about 61 years, R/o
Budhapur, Tehsil Lambhua, District Retired from Assistant Sultanpur-
220302. Commissioner (RETD), in the CGST & Central Excise, Div,
Jaunpur.
46. Pradeep Kumar Singh, S/o Late Shatrughan Jee Shukla, aged about
years, R/o 24/3 Lowther Road, George Town, Allahabad-UP-211002.
Presently posted as Assistant Commissioner, in the CGST & Central
Excise, Div, Raebareli.
47. Smt. Sushama Shukla D/o Late Jagdeo Singh, aged about 56 years,
R/o F-305, Sangam Link Apartment, Baghamvaru Road, Allahpur,
Allahabad. Presently posted as Superintendent in the CGST & Central
Excise, Div, Raebareli.
48. Himanshu Vallabh Shukla, S/o Late Shatrughan Jee Shukla, aged
about years, R/o 24/3 Lowther Road, George Town, Allahabad-UP-
211002. Presently posted as Superintendent in the CGST & Central
Excise, Div, Raebareli.
49. Suresh Kumar Saroj, S/o Late Manik Lal, aged about 57 years, R/o
Bashiv Nagar, 66 Feet Road, Near P.A.C., Civil Lines, Raebareli-221001.
Presently posted as Assistant Commissioner, in the CGST & Central
Excise, Div-II, Allahabad.
50. Saurabh Mani Tripathi, S/o Late R.M. Tripathi, aged about 69 years,
R/o Maheva East, Behind R.N.T. College, Post Office Agriculture
Institute, Prayagraj. Retired from Inspector, in the CGST & Central
Excise, Allahabad.
51. Smt. Shobha Rani Saxena D/o Late Krishna Murari Lal Saxena, aged
about 78 years, R/o 120/473, Lajpat Nagar, Kanpur-208005. Retired
from Superintendent (RETD), in the CUS.C.Ex (GST) Commissionerate,
Kanpur.
....Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Jaswant Singh
NEELAM KUMARI SINGH
6
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 Secretary, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance,
Government of India, New Delhi.
4. The Chairman, Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs, North
Block, New Delhi.
5. The Principal Chief Commissioner (CCA), Central Excise and CGST,
Lucknow Zone, 7-A, Ashok Marg, Lucknow (U.P.)
6. The Chief Commissioner, Customs (Prev) Commissionerate,
Apratyaksh Bhawan, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
7. The Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise Commissionerate,
38 Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Prayagraj (U.P.).
8. The Commissioner, Central GST Commissionerate, 117/7, Sarvodaya
Nagar, Kanpur.
9. The Commissioner, Central Goods & Central Excise,
Commissionerate, 9 Maqbool Alam Road, Varanasi-221002.
10. The Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Appeals
Commissionerate, 38 Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Prayagraj.
11. Chief Commissioner, Customs (Preventive) Zone, Patna 4th Floor,
C.R. Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna-800001.
.... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma
ORDER
Delivered by Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A) Heard Shri Jaswant Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the case is being decided at this stage itself.
2. The instant Original Application, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has been filed by the applicants NEELAM KUMARI SINGH seeking following relief(s):-
7"a) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 21.04.2004 (Annexure Nos.A-1 of the O.A.), qua the applicants, to the extent they limit/confine the actual benefits of the revised/upgraded pay scales for Inspectors and Superintendents of Excise, as mentioned in the order dated 21.04.2004, by granting the same w.e.f.
21.04.2004 i.e. the date of issue of order revising the pay scales, and not from 01.01.1996.
b) That this Tribunal be pleased to command the respondents, by means of a time-bound order, to grant the applicants the benefits of the revised pay scales for the posts of Inspectors and Superintendents of Central Excise now CGST, on notional basis, w.e.f. 01.01.1996, and actual benefits from 21.04.2004 as ordered by the Telangana High court and as upheld by Apex Court, with all consequential benefits, including payment of arrears of salary and other emoluments for the entire period, with applicable interest, at such rates as may be found just and appropriate, and proper fixation of pay/pension of the applicants on the basis of such revision.
c) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to grant such other relief, as the applicants might be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. The brief facts of the case, as reflected in the Original Application, are that the applicants in this case are either presently working or have retired from the post of Superintendent in various offices/formations under the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (formerly known as Central Board of Excise & Customs), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India.
4. All of them were working as an inspector (either by initial appointment or by virtue of promotion) and later promoted to the post of Superintendent. The pay scales of Inspectors (Rs.1640-2900) and Superintendents (Rs.2000-3500) in various departments and the Income Tax Department were upgraded in 2004.
5. As per the recommendations of the IVth and Vth Central Pay Commissions, certain pay scales were prescribed for these posts. However, the Government of India granted a higher pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 to Inspectors working in CBI/NCB but this benefit was not extended to Inspectors of Central Excise, Customs, or Income Tax departments.
6. Thereafter, vide Office Memorandum dated 21.04.2004, on being appraised of the disparity/anomaly, the Government of India enhanced the pay scales of similarly situated officers of Railway Accounts, Postal NEELAM KUMARI SINGH Accounts etc. notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1996 actually w.e.f. 18.02.2003 (the 8 date of enhancement) stating therein that the revised pay scales shall take effect from the date of order i.e. 21.04.2004. However, the pay scales of similarly situated persons in Railway Accounts and Postal Accounts were enhanced notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
7. The applicants are aggrieved by aforesaid decision and submitted 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.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants relied on precedents where Central Administrative Tribunals (CAT) in Kolkata, and Mumbai, Bench, granted relief in analogous cases. These cases determined that denying retroactive application to 01.01.1996 constituted a discriminatory practice, thus mandating notional application from this earlier date. The counsel submitted that applicants have moved multiple representations which were rejected by the Respondents. One such letter dated 04.08.2025 is reproduced below:-
F.No.A-26017/50/2025-Ad.IIA Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs North Block, New Delhi Dated the 4th August, 2025.
To, All CCAs of CBIC Subject: Disposal of representation on request for enhanced pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 instead of 21.04.2004-reg.
Sir, I am directed to refer to the subject cited above and to state that a large number of representations on the said subjecť are being received in the Board from the officers of CBIC.
2. In this regard it is stated that subsequent to dismissal of SLP filed by the Board in the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject, the court order is being NEELAM KUMARI SINGH implemented on in personam basis. However, the matter is under examination in consultation with Department of Expenditure for extending the benefit to all 9 the similarly placed officers. Notwithstanding, as on date the factual, position is that the DoE has not yet taken any decision with regard to extending the same benefit to all similarly placed officers. It is therefore, requested that all such representations may be disposed off/replied as per the existing government policy till a final decision is taken by the DoE on the matter.
2. This has the approval of Competent Authority.
Yours faithfully, (Manish Chhabria) Under Secretary to the Government of India Tele. No. 011-23094209.
9. 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.
10. The respondents, represented by Shri M. K. Sharma, has not filed the counter affidavit inspite of repeated opportunities granted to him. He submits that the revision of pay scales was approved from 21.04.2004 and does not warrant retrospective application to 01.01.1996. He further 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.
11. 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.
NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 12. It is seen from the record that on 21.04.2004, the Ministry of Finance issued an office memorandum regarding the upgradation of 10 pay scales for various posts under the Central Board of Direct Taxes (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 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 Revised Pay
Scale Scale
Income Tax Officer Rs 7500- Rs. 7500-12000
12000
Appraiser (Central Excise) Rs.6500- Rs. 7500-12000
10500
Superintendent (Central Rs.6500- Rs. 7500-12000
Excise) 10500
Superintendent (Customs Rs. 500- Rs. 7500-12000
Preventive) 10500
Income Tax Inspector Rs. 5500- Rs. 6500-10500
9000
Inspector (Central Excise) Rs. 5500- Rs. 6500-10500
9000
NEELAM KUMARI SINGH Examiner (Customs) Rs. 5500- Rs. 6500-10500
9000
11
Preventive Officer (Customs) Rs. 5500- Rs. 6500-10500
9000
The revised pay scale shall take effect immediately from the date of these orders.
13. 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 NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 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 justification for grant of equal pay to both those in the 12 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 Income Tax NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 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 13 fully accepted, vide the noting of the Ministry of Finance as 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 practice, as has been reflected in para 21 above is also that in all such cases where revision of pay scale is allowed at a later 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 onwards only. We also observe that applicants would also be bound by the decision of said Writ Petition & such other proceedings as may be taken up therein. No cost."
14. 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 Petition No.21/2015 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Chakraborty & Ors.) before the Kolkata High Court and the Kolkata High Court vide NEELAM KUMARI SINGH order dated 03.05.2023 disposed of the aforesaid writ petition with the following directions:-
14"............ 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."
15. 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, 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.
NEELAM KUMARI SINGH
3. The Special Anomaly Committee made relevant recommendations as under:15
"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."
16. Further, in an identical OA No.1089/2019 passed by Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal the Union of India has filed Writ Petition No.10490/2024 before the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad which was dismissed on 09.08.2024 against which SLP (diary) No.59006/2024 was also filed by the Union of India that too was dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 28.02.2025.
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 NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 16 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, 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. 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 NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 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 17 can only refer it to a larger Bench if it disagrees with the earlier pronouncement. "
21. 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."
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."
22. 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) NEELAM KUMARI SINGH SCC 747, as under:-
18"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."
23. 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 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.
24. In light of the foregoing analysis and the principles of service jurisprudence articulated by the Apex 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.
25. 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.
26. 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 NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 19 Anomaly Committee for the applicants' pay scales underscore this necessity for equitable treatment.
27. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.04.2004 as stated in Relief Clause (a) of the aforesaid Original Application passed by the respondents is hereby quashed to the extent that revised pay scales were made effective from the date of issue of order. The respondents are directed to grant the revised pay scales of the applicants to their respective post on notional basis with effect from 01.01.1996 and actual benefits with effect from 21.04.2004 with all consequential benefits, including payment of arrears of salary with applicable interest. The respondents shall complete the necessary implementation within a period of three months from the date of this order.
28. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
neelam/
NEELAM KUMARI SINGH