Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Vitobh S Shetty vs Revenue on 21 April, 2025
1 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00411/2024
ORDER RESERVED : 04.04.2025
DATE OF ORDER : 21.04.2025
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE DR.SANJIV KUMAR ...MEMBER(A)
1. Shri. VITOBH S SHETTY,
S/o SUBRAY,
Aged about 58 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Pune Zone, R/o #707,
ARUSH ARYA APARTMENT,
DR. VISHNUVARDHAN ROAD,
CHANNASANDRA,
BENGALURU-560098.
2. Shri. B. G. NANDAKUMAR,
S/o B.C. GOVINDU,
Aged about 55 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Pune Zone, R/o 29/30, 1st Cross,
Somanna Garden, Durgaparameshwari Layout,
Vidyaranyapura, Bengaluru-560097.
3. Ms. V R Devikala,
D/o R V Rajagopalan,
Aged about 54 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
S SARALADEVI
S CAT, BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.04.29
12:09:21-12'00'
2 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
DGPM Hyderabad,
R/o No.1, 7th A Cross, Sir MV Nagar,
Kalkere Main Road, Ramamurthynagar,
Bangalore-560016.
4. Smt. Bharathi K,
D/o Late Shri KM Shama Bhat,
Aged about 53 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
DGPM, Hyderabad,
R/o #96, 3rd main, 5th cross, Akshayanagar West,
Begur post, Bengaluru 560068.
5. Smt. CV Savitha,
D/o K. S. Venkatdas,
Aged about 53 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Hyderabad Zone R/o No. 7, 2nd Main, RPC Layout,
Vijayanagar 2nd Stage, Bangalore 560040.
6. Smt. Rakshanda Jamal Nawab,
D/o ARA NAWAB.,
Aged about 57 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Chennai Zone R/o No. 784,4th Block,
5th, Cross Koramangala, Bangalore 560034.
7. Shri. DHARMA VEERA P,
S/o PUTTASWAMY,
Aged about 55 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Lucknow Zone,
R/o No. 166, Shiva Krupa, 5th Cross,
10th Block, Nagarabhavi 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT, BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.04.29
12:09:21-12'00'
3 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
8. Shri. G. RAMA MOHAN NAIDU,
S/o G. CHINNA CHINNAPPA,
Aged about 53 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
DGPM, NEW DELHI R/o NO.4, 4TH CROSS,
CENTRAL REVENUE LAYOUT-2,
NEAR HEGDE NAGAR HANUMAN TAMPLE,
DR SHIVARAMKARANT NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560077.
9. Smt. G.ANITHA,
D/o GANESHA,
Aged about 55 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Vishakpatnam Zone,
R/o No.2598, 9th A Cross, 14th Main,
E Block, Sahakaranagar,
Bangalore-560092.
10.Shri. H.S.Govardhana Rao,
S/o H.N.Sudharshana Rao (late),
Aged about 57 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Hyderabad Zone R/o 167, PRANAVAATMIKA,
8th Cross, 2nd Main, Goviunayakana Hally,
Kumaraswamy Layout 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru-560078.
11.Shri. JITENDRA.L,
S/o B.S. LAXMAIAH,
Aged about 55 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Vishakpatnam Zone R/o Flat-117,
Sycon Cressida Apts, Horamavu Main Road,
Kalyanagar P.O, Bangalore-43.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT, BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.04.29
12:09:21-12'00'
4 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
12.Shri. K Anantha Murthy,
S/o Y Krishna Sharma,
Aged about 57 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Chennai Zone R/o No. 10, 11th Cross,
8th Main, Girinagar, Bengaluru-560085.
13.Shri. K. Muralidhara Acharya,
S/o K. Damodhara Acharya,
Aged about 55 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
DGPM, NEW DELHI R/o No.121,
Embassy Heritage, 8th Main Malleshwaram,
Bangalore-560055.
14.Smt. K.R.Brunda,
D/o K.C.Ramaiah,
Aged about 57 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Chennai Zone R/o Villa No.18 Jeevanadi Samskar,
Virupakshapura, Thindlu, Bangalore.
15.Shri. Krishna Ramachandra Bhat,
S/o Ramachandra Ganesh Bhat,
Aged about 56 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Pune Zone R/o NO. 3, 7TH CROSS,
5TH MAIN, KEB LAY OUT, RMV IIND STAGE,
SANJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU-560094.
16.Shri. M Shankar Kumar,
S/o V Murugesan,
Aged about 53 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Nagpur Zone,
S SARALADEVI
S CAT, BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.04.29
12:09:21-12'00'
5 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
R/o 28, Sai Krupa, 2nd cross,
KSFC Layout, Lingarajapuram,
Bangalore 560084.
17.Shri. Mahesh Kumar,
S/o K.M. Mahadevan,
Aged about 54 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Nagpur Zone R/o No.41/1,
FIRST FLOOR, NEXT TO CHITRAKOOTA SCHOOL,
RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD,
HAMPINAGAR, BENGALURU-560104.
18.Shri. Mohan T,
S/o Thimmaiah,
Aged about 54 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Meerut zone,
R/o 3951, 17 D cross, 4 Main,
BSK 2 stage, Bangalore 560070.
19.Shri. N. P. Grampurohit,
S/o P. Grampurohit,
Aged about 54 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Nagpur Zone,
R/o 40 Feet Road, 4th Main, Jayanagar East,
Near Telephone Exchange, Tumakuru.
20.Shri. Nanda Kumar,
S/o R.B.Upadhyaya,
Aged about 56 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Chennai Zone.
R/o #437/412, Hari Nivasa, 4th Cross,
Syndicate Bank Lay out, Herohalli, Bangalore.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT, BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.04.29
12:09:21-12'00'
6 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
21.Smt. R.Manjula,
D/o Late N.V. Ramaiah,
Aged about 56 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Chennai Zone,
R/o MIG-25, H Block, 3rd Cross,
Ramakrishna Nagar, Mysuru 570023.
22.Shri. RAM PRASAD,
S/o K.N.S. PRASAD,
Aged about 56 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Hyderabad Zone,
R/o A-901, Siroya Environ,
Unnathi Layout, R.T.Nagar Post,
BENGALURU - 560032.
23.Shri. Ravishankar Gaonkar,
S/o Govindray Gaonkar,
Aged about 57 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Pune Zone,
R/o B 402. Princeville apartment,
Mylasandra, Mysore Road, R V Niketan Post,
Bengaluru-560059.
24.Shri. S Natarajan,
S/o Late Shri A B Surulibommu,
Aged about 57 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Chennai Zone, R/o 11 Venkataswamappa Layout,
Near Nanjappa Circle, Vidyaranyapura,
Bengaluru.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT, BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.04.29
12:09:21-12'00'
7 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
25.Shri. SHRISHAIL TORGAL,
S/o MALLIKARJUN TORGAL,
Aged about 57 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Pune Zone,
R/o H.NO. 367 BUDA SCHEME 51,
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI - 590009.
26. Shri. Srinivasa Gopal M,
S/o Shri MJR Mohan Rao,
Aged about 55 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Nagpur Zone,
R/o FLAT No.CB0108, 1ST FLOOR,
B2 BLOCK, KSR CORDELIA, APARTMENTS,
RACHENAHALLI, DASARAHALLI ROAD,
HAF POST, BANGALORE 560024
27. Shri. V Lakshmi Narayana,
S/o Late V. Pullanna,
Aged about 55 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Nagpur Zone,
R/o No.23, Jaynagar Colony, Ballari.
28,Shri. Vishwanatha Rao Chowhan,
S/o Ramanatha Rao,
Aged about 58 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Lucknow Zone R/o No. 99, S.B.M. Colony,
4th Cross, Banashankari 1st Stage,
Bengaluru-560 050.
(By Advocate, Shri M.A Narayana )
S SARALADEVI
S CAT, BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.04.29
12:09:21-12'00'
8 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Vs.
1. Union of India
represented by Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
North Block,
New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Secretary,
Ministry of Finance Department of Expenditure,
North Block,
New Delhi-110 001.
3. The Chairman,
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs,
North Block,
New Delhi-110 001.
4. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Central Tax,
Bengaluru Zone,
P.B.No.5400,
C. R. Building,
Queen's Road,
Bangalore-560 001. ...Respondents
(By Advocate, Shri Sayed S.Kazi for Respondents)
S SARALADEVI
S CAT, BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.04.29
12:09:21-12'00'
9 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
ORDER
Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)
The applicants have filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) Hold the letter Ref F.No.A-26017/65/2003-Ad.IIA dated 25.07.2023 issued by the 3rd Respondent as communicated by the different subordinate authorities as arbitrary , unjust, illegal and set aside the same (Annexure A-1);
(ii) Hold the letter OM F.No.6/37/98-IC dated 21.04.2004 issued by the 2nd Respondent as unjust, illegal, and arbitrary in so far as it relates to the effective date of its application (Annexure A-2).
(iii) Direct the Respondents to issue appropriate orders to make the revised pay granted under OM F.No.6/37/98 IC dt. 21.04.2004 to be effective from 01.01.1996 i.e., the date of implementation of the 5th CPC recommendations in the interest of justice and equity.
S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.04.29 12:09:21-12'00' 10 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
(iv) Direct the respondents to pay the consequential arrears arising therefrom with appropriate interest;
(v) Award costs of this application; and/or
(vi) Pass such other order/s as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case so as to render full justice to the applicants."
2. The applicants are working in the Department of Customs and Central Excise. The applicants have joined together to expose a common cause.
Historically, the pay scales of Inspectors of Central Excise, Examiners of Customs and the Preventive Officers of the Custom Houses were always on par with that of the Inspectors of CBI/IB, owing to the fact that the nature of the duties of these officers was comparable and carried the same risk and arduousness. Even 4th CPC had recommended the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 in respect of these cadres. The pay scale of CBI/IB Inspectors was initially fixed at recommended pay scale, but subsequently Government unilaterally revised the pay S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.04.29 12:09:21-12'00' 11 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH scale of the CBI/IB Inspectors to Rs.2000-3200/- with retrospective effect from 01.01.1986. But the same benefit was not extended to the Inspectors of Central Excise and others, which led to agitation and negotiation with the department through various staff associations. However, by that time the 5th CPC was constituted and the issue was referred to 5th CPC in pursuance of the C.A.T., Jabalpur Bench's order in OA No.541/1994. Though the Commission in the 5th CPC proceedings recommended the replacement scale corresponding to the scale of Rs.1640-2900/- even for the cadre of CBI/IB Inspectors, recording that there was no justification for grant of higher pay scale to CBI/IB than the one recommended by the 4th CPC, despite the specific recommendation of 5th CPC, Government chose to recommend replacement scale corresponding to the scale of Rs.2000-3200/- to the CBI/IB Inspectors and retained the pay scale corresponding to the pay scale of Rs.1640- 2900/- to the Inspectors of Central Excise and other similarly placed cadres. This differential treatment and the agitations of the aggrieved persons forced the Hon'ble Finance Minister to form a High Power Committee to go into the representations and demands relating to the pay S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.04.29 12:09:21-12'00' 12 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH scale disparity and other grievances arising out of 5th CPC. This Committee constituted in the year 1998 recommended the grant of pay scale equivalent to that of CBI/IB Inspectors to the Inspectors of Central Excise as well. Having regard to the recommendations of the High Power Committee, the Ministry of Finance issued OM dated 21.04.2004 revising pay scales of all the cadre which were adversely affected by the hostile treatment meted out by the Government with effect from the date of the OM i.e., 21.04.2004. The demand of the officers to extend the revised pay with effect from 01.01.1996 i.e., the date of implementation of 5th CPC recommendations was referred before the 6th CPC. The 6th CPC though clearly admitted the well established parity of the Chief Enforcement Officer with the Superintendent of Central Excise, Superintendent of Customs (Preventive), Appraisers, Income Tax Officers and Superintendent of Narcotics, but no such equal treatment was given by the Government to the aggrieved officers which constrained the officers to file OAs before the different Benches of this Tribunal seeking for grant of the revised pay scales from retrospective date i.e., 01.01.1996, wherein the relief was granted notionally w.e.f.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT, BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.04.29
12:09:21-12'00'
13 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
01.01.1996. The subsequent petitions/appeals including SLPs filed by the respective departments were dismissed both on merits and limitation. As such, the applicants filed individual representations before the authorities seeking for similar reliefs, but in vain. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the claim of the applicants, this OA is preferred.
3. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the applicants.
Learned Counsel Shri M.A.Narayana representing the applicants submitted that the respondents though admittedly took cognizance of the anomaly in the pay scales of the similarly placed persons, constituted the High Power Committee to address the issue. However, the anomaly was removed partially by the respondents through the impugned OM dated 21.04.2004 awarding the higher pay scale with effect from 21.04.2004 instead of 01.01.1996. Learned Counsel further submitted that any subsequent pay revision after the implementation of the Pay Commission report is to be related back to the date of implementation of the revised pay rules and ought to be granted from that date, is no more res-integra. As the Revised Pay Rules, 1997 implementing the recommendations of the 5th CPC came into force with effect from S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.04.29 12:09:21-12'00' 14 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH 01.01.1996, any rectification/modification/revision in scales recommended by the Central Pay Commission should also be implemented from the date the revised pay scales coming into force for all the Central Ministries/Departments etc. The decision to revise the pay scales with prospective effect from 21.04.2004 instead of 01.01.1996 is arbitrary and illegal. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the following citations:
1) OA No.397/2009 (DD: 10.07.2012)- Ashis Chakraborth and others vs. Union of India and others.
2) WPCT No.21/2015 (DD: 03.05.2023) - The Union of India and others vs. Ashis Chakraborty and others.
3) OA No.1089/2019 and connected matters (DD: 09.01.2024) -
Cyril Jospeph and others vs. Union of India and others)
4) W.P.No.10490/2024- Union of India vs.R.Siva Shankara Sastry and others (DD: 09.08.2024) High Court of Telangana.
5) SLP No.59005/2024 - (DD: 28.02.2025)
S SARALADEVI
S CAT, BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.04.29
12:09:21-12'00'
15 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
4. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the respondents.
Referring to the detailed reply statement filed on behalf of the respondents, learned Counsel Shri Sayed S. Kazi representing the respondents submitted that the issue of pay parity and upgradations of pay scales of Superintendent/Inspectors during 1995-2004 was considered in detail in the Ministry in consultation with Department of Expenditure and the High Power Committee felt that since there had been no alternations in the duties of Inspectors falling in the two categories viz., Inspectors of Central Excise and Customs and Preventive Officers, strong recommendations for parity in pay scale and other perks were suggested. Thereafter, the Department of Expenditure issued OM dated 21.04.2004 considering the decision taken by the duly constituted High Power Committee. The 6th CPC, an expert Body in these matters, also examined the issue of retrospective revision of pay for the executive post of CBEC and CBDT. The matter was examined in consultation with Department of Expenditure.
5. However, the Department of Expenditure having examined the issue in a broader spectrum has decided that the pay scale of the S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.04.29 12:09:21-12'00' 16 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH following Group 'D' and 'C' posts shall stand revised with effect from 21.04.2004 and not retrospectively from 01.01.1996.
Sl. Name of the post Existing Scale
Revised Pay
No. Scale
1 Appraiser Rs.6500-10500 Rs.7500-12000
2 Superintendent of Rs.6500-10500 Rs.7500-12000
Customs (Preventive)
3 Superintendent of Central Rs.6500-10500 Rs.7500-12000
Excise
4 Inspector of Central Rs.5500-9000 Rs.6500-10500
Excise
5 Examiner (Customs) re- Rs.5500-9000 Rs.6500-10500
designated as Inspector
(Examiner)
6 Preventive Officer Rs.5500-9000 Rs.6500-10500
(Customs) re-designated
as Inspector (Preventive
Officer)
6. The Department of Expenditure has issued the aforesaid OM dated 21.04.2004 after considering the decision taken by the duly constituted High Power Committee. The challenge was made before the various judicial Forums by the aggrieved persons, but the applicants herein, were sleeping over the mater, they being fence sitters, having approached this Tribunal in the year 2024, delay and laches being manifestly apparent, they would be entitled to the upgraded pay scales S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.04.29 12:09:21-12'00' 17 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH with effect from 01.01.1996 on notional basis as ruled by the judicial orders but arrears requires to be restricted to three years in terms of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in following judgments:
1) Union of India and others vs. Tarsem Singh reported in 2008 (8) SCC 648 [Civil Appeal No.5151-5152/2008 (DD:13.08.2008)].
2) State of M.P. & Others vs. Yogendra Shrivastava reported in (2010) 12 SCC 538 [Civil Appeal No.3156/2007 (DD: 07.10.2009)].
3) Asger Ibrahim Amin vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India reported in (2016) 13 SCC 797 [Civil Appeal No.10251/2014 (DD: 12.10.2015)].
7. Analysis The issue (on merits) involved herein is no more res-integra in view of the orders passed by various Benches of this Tribunal. It is apt to refer to the order passed in OA No.397/2009 - Ashis Chakraborth and others vs. Union of India and others (DD: 10.07.2012) by the Calcutta Bench of this Tribunal, wherein considering the identical issue, it was held that the applicants therein, would be entitled to the upgraded pay scale from 01.01.1996 on notional basis and arrears from S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.04.29 12:09:21-12'00' 18 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH 21.04.2004 onwards only while allowing the OA. The said order was challenged by the respondents in WPCT No.21/2015 before the Hon'ble High Court Calcutta, wherein it is observed as under:
"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 Committee was directed to be constituted to take a conscious decision in this regard. Since it is 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 S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.04.29 12:09:21-12'00' 19 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH 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."
In compliance with the said order, Special Anomaly Committee was constituted, the Special Anomaly Committed observed that there is no anomaly in the date of effectiveness for grant of enhanced pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/- in case of Inspector of Income Tax and Rs.7500-12000 in case of Income Tax Officer. In some of the cases, enhanced pay scale was granted from 01.01.1996 while in case of Income Tax Officer and Inspector of Income Tax, it was granted with effect from 21.04.2004. This anomaly needs to be redressed in case of the 13 respondents (therein), subject to the approval of the competent authority. Recommendations made by the Special Anomaly Committee reads as under:
"Recommendations.
Pay scale in the grade of Inspector shall be notionally enahanced to Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f 01.01.1996 and in the grade of ITO to S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.04.29 12:09:21-12'00' 20 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Rs.7500-12000 w.e.f. the date of joining the post of ITO i.e., 30.07.2003. The pay shall be refixed accordingly and the actual payment as well as arrears thereupon shall be given w.e.f. 21.04.2004 i.e., the date of issuance of OM by Department of Expenditure F.No.6/37/98-IC dated 21.04.2004."
8. In OA No.1089/2019 and connected matters [Cyril Joseph vs. Union of India and others (DD:09.01.2024)] the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal, allowing the OAs directed the respondents to grant enhanced pay scale of Inspectors/Superintendents in the Central Tax and Customs Department from 01.01.1996 notionally to the applicants along with consequential arrears, if any, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the said order. This order has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in W.P.No.10490/2024 and confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 59005/2024 vide order dated 28.02.2025. Similarly in WPCT No.6/2025, the Principal Commissioner of CGST and CX, Kolkata North CGST & CX Commisionerate vs. Nabarun Roy and others, the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta has S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.04.29 12:09:21-12'00' 21 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH observed that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits notionally with effect from 01.01.1996, referring to the Hon'ble Apex Court order in SLP (C) No. 59005/2024 preferred against the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in W.P.No.10490/2024 and accordingly Writ Petition has been disposed of. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Miscellaneous Petition No.177/2025 (DD:18.03.2025). Thus in the present proceedings, there is no cavil on the entitlements of the applicants to the enhanced pay scales from 01.01.1996 notionally and actually from 21.04.2004, but the dispute is insofar as the entitlement of the applicants to the arrears are concerned having regard to the delay and laches. Hence, the only question that requires to be addressed by this Tribunal is with respect to the entitlement of the applicants so far as the arrears are concerned.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Tarsem Singh supra, addressing the issue of delay and laches has observed thus:
S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.04.29 12:09:21-12'00' 22 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH "7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or re-
fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.04.29 12:09:21-12'00' 23 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.
8. In this case, the delay of sixteen years would affect the consequential claim for arrears. The High Court was not justified in directing payment of arrears relating to sixteen years, and that too with interest. It ought to have restricted the relief relating to arrears to only three years before the date of writ petition, or from the date of demand to date of writ petition, whichever was lesser. It ought not to have granted interest on arrears in such circumstances."
10. In the case of Yogendra Shrivastava supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court considering the entitlement of NPA at 25% of pay of the Madhya Pradesh Employees' State Insurance Service (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1981, held insofar as arrears, the employees are entitled to recover the difference in NPA only in regard to the salary which accrued due during the three years prior to the date of filing of the original applications before the Tribunal and not from the date of their appointments, further observing that if the State of Madhya Pradesh and others - appellants therein, in pursuance of the orders of the S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.04.29 12:09:21-12'00' 24 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Tribunal/High Court, had paid the difference of NPA, for any period beyond the years before the date of the respective original applications, they will be at liberty to recover the same from the respective respondents in 24 monthly instalments.
11. In Asger Ibrahim Amin supra, while considering the question whether the appellant therein, Asger Ibrahim Amin is entitled to claim pension even though he resigned from service on his own volition and, if so, whether his claim on this count had become barred by limitation and laches, held that "considering the huge delay, not explained by proper reasons, on the part of the Appellant in approaching the Court, we limit the benefits of arrears of pension payable to the Appellant to three years preceding the date of the petition filed before the High Court".
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court while deciding the effective date of implementing the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India and Another vs. M.Siddaraj vide final order dated 20.02.2025 in Miscellaneous Application Diary No.2400/2024 in Civil appeal S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.04.29 12:09:21-12'00' 25 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH No.3933/2023, modifying the interim order dated 06.09.2024 declared as under:
"We are inclined to dispose of the present miscellaneous applications directing that Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the order dated 06.09.2024 will be treated as final directions. We are, however, of the opinion that Clause (d) of the order dated 06.09.2024 requires modification which shall now read as under:
"(d) In case any retired employee filed an application for intervention/impleadment/writ petition/original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal/High Courts/this Court, the enhanced pension by including one increment will be payable for the period of three years prior to the month in which the application for intervention/ impleadment/ writ petition/ original application was filed."
Further, clause (d) will not apply to the retired government employee who filed a writ petition/original application or an application for intervention before the Central Administrative Tribunal/High Courts/this Court after the judgment in "Union of India & Anr. v. M. Siddaraj", as in such cases, clause (a) will apply.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT, BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.04.29
12:09:21-12'00'
26 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Recording the aforesaid, the miscellaneous applications are disposed of.
We, further, clarify that in case any excess payment has already been made, including arrears, such amount paid will not be recovered."
13. In State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & others reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 - Civil Appeal No.9849/2014 (DD:17.10.2014), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus:
"22.2. However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT, BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.04.29
12:09:21-12'00'
27 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence."
14. In the light of the aforesaid judgements, the question of delay and laches in preferring the original application(s) before this Tribunal, is examined.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT, BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.04.29
12:09:21-12'00'
28 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
15. CONCLUSION
It is ex-facie apparent that the applicants subsequent to the issue of Office Memorandum dated 21.04.2004 (Annexure A2) which gives effect to the revised pay scales immediately from the date of the said order i.e., 21.04.2004, have not made any sincere efforts to challenge the said order at the earliest point of time. They were sleeping over the matter and raised suddenly from the slumber in the year 2024 after 20 years, only for the reason that some of the similarly situated persons who approached the judicial forums earlier, in time, succeeded in their efforts. As such, they were to be treated as fence sitters. Thus, we are of the considered view that contextually, the main relief may be granted in terms of the judicial orders passed by various Benches of this Tribunal and confirmed by the Higher Courts, inasmuch as extending the benefit of higher pay scale as granted in the OM dated 21.04.2004, notionally with effect from 01.01.1996 and actually from 21.04.2004, condoning the delay as it does not affect the rights of the third parties. However, insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for the past period is concerned, the principles relating to S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.04.29 12:09:21-12'00' 29 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH recurring/successive wrongs will apply as per the settled legal principles enunciated in Tarsem Singh, supra. The delay of 20 years would affect the consequential claim for arrears. Considering the huge delay not explained by proper reasons in approaching the Tribunal by the applicants, in our opinion, the consequential relief relating to arrears could be restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the application in the interest of justice and equity. Hence the following:
ORDER
1) The letter Reference F.No.A-26017/65/2003-Ad.IIA dated 25.07.2023 (Annexure A1) as communicated by the competent authorities, is set aside. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of upgraded pay scales to the applicants granted vide OM dated 21.04.2004 (Annexure A2) notionally with effect from 01.01.1996.
2) The OM dated 21.04.2004 (Annexure A2) issued by the Respondent No.2 insofar as it relates to the effective date of application, is modified. The applicants are entitled to the S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE SARALADEVI2025.04.29 12:09:21-12'00' 30 OA 411/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH benefits flowing from OM dated 21.04.2004 (Annexure A2) notionally with effect from 01.01.1996 and actually from 21.04.2004.
3) The applicants are entitled to the consequential benefit of arrears thereof, to only three years before the date of filing of the original application (15.07.2024), before this Tribunal.
4) OA stands disposed of, in terms of above.
All the pending MA(s), if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
sd/- sd/-
(DR.SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S.SUJATHA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT, BANGALORE
SARALADEVI2025.04.29
12:09:21-12'00'