AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: Hon’ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (Judicial)
The applicant(s) being aggrieved with action on the part of the respondents to grant them the benefit of upgraded pay/enhanced pay scale w.e.f. 21.04.2004 instead of 01.01.1996, have filed the present OA, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs: -
“8) Relief Sought
Under these circumstances the applicant prays that this Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass an appropriate order
A) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to Quash and set aside the impugned decision dated 25.07.2023 (Annexure A/1), as communicated vide letter dated 02- 07-2025 (Annexure A/2), whereby the proposal to grant the benefit of notional upgradation of pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to the posts of Inspector and Superintendent under CBIC was rejected;
B) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold and declare that the action of the respondents whereby rejecting their representation vide letters annexed at Annexure A/2 collectively, for granting the upgraded pay scales to Inspectors and Superintendents of Central Excise/ Customs only from 21.04.2004 instead of 01.01.1996 is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and be pleased to quash and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant enhanced pay-scale to the applicants upon to the post of lnspectors and Superintendents from 01.01.1996 notionally.
C) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the benefit of upgraded pay scales (Rs. 6500-10500 to Inspectors and Rs. 7500-12000 to Superintendents) notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and actually w.e.f. 21.04.2004, in parity with similarly placed officers in other departments such as CBDT, Railway Accounts, and Postal Accounts.
D) That this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to fix the pay of the applicants accordingly from 01.01.1996 notionally and thereafter to pay arrears of pay, pension, and all other consequential benefits actually from 21.04.2004 onward within a stipulated time limit, along with interest at such rate as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
E) Grant of any other relief to which the applicant is found entitled to in law and equity”
Mr. Abhijeet Singh counsel for the applicant(s) mainly argued that the issued involved in the present OA is for grant of enhanced pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 instead of 21.04.2004 to the Inspectors/ Superintendents working with CGST, has been decided by coordinate Bench of this Tribunal i.e., CAT Hyderabad Bench in OA No. 1089/2019 & other connected OAs vide common order dated 09.01.2024 as also by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 411/2025 vide order dated 16.12.2025, whereby, while allowing the said OA, the respondents were directed to grant enhanced pay scale to the Superintendents (applicants therein) from 01.01.1996 notionally along with the consequential arrears, if any within a stipulated time period.
Being aggrieved with the said order passed by CAT, Hyderabad Bench, the official respondents had approached the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana by way of filing Writ Petition No. 10490 of 2024 (The Union of India Vs. R Siva Shankara Sastry), the Hon’ble High Court by considering the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in Writ Petition (CT) No. 21/2015 decided on 03.05.2023, wherein while deciding the challenge to the order passed by CAT, Kolkata Bench in OA No. 397/2009 dated 10.07.2012 on identical issue and direction, the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta directed Union of India to constitute a special Anomaly Committee who shall decide the claim/representation of the Inspector/Superintendents working in the CBDT and further, by taking into consideration the fact that as per the direction issued by the High Court of Kolkata a Special Anomaly Committee was constituted and based on the recommendation of the said Committee, the CBDT has issued an order dated 12.09.2023 and enhanced the pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 notionally to the respondents in the Writ Petition (CT) No. 21/2015, accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana held that once a Special Anomaly Committee was constituted in CBDT and based on the recommendation of the said Committee for grant of benefit of pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996, the same was implemented with retrospective effect from 01.01.1996 in the CBDT, since the Department of Revenue being common for both the CBDT and CBIC, there is no need to constitute a separate Anomaly Committee for the CBIC. Further, it has been upheld that the recommendation of the Special Anomaly Committee have to be applied to the entire Revenue Department which includes both the Board i.e., CBDT and CBIC.
Accordingly, the order passed by CAT, Hyderabad Bench directing the respondents to grant enhanced pay scale to the Inspector/Superintendents working in the CBDT from 01.01.1996 notionally along with consequential arrears has been upheld and the Writ Petition filed by the Original Respondents has been dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana vide judgment dated 09.08.2024.
The official respondents being aggrieved with the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana dated 09.08.2024, had approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of filing SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 59005/2024 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. R Siva Shankara Sastry & Ors). The said SLP came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble apex Court vide order dated 28.02.2025.
Learned counsel also relied upon the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Misc. Petition No. 177/2025 (Union of India and others Vs Sarad Kumar Tripathi and others) wherein the Hon’ble High Court by taking into consideration the order passed by CAT, Hyderabad Bench (supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Telangan (supra) and the order passed by Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 59005/2024 dated 28.02.225 (supra) declined to interfere in the impugned order dated 14.11.2024 passed by CAT, Jabalpur Bench in OA No. 404/2024 directing the official respondents to grant revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 instead of 21.04.2004.
During the course of argument, learned counsel for the applicant(s) relied on the recent orders passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 311/2025 dated 04.08.2025, O.A. No. 353/2025 dated 12.08.2025, O.A. No. 426/2025, 427/2025, 428/2025, 429/2025, 430/2025, 431/2025, 432/2025, 433/2025, 434/2025 & 435/2025 dated 26.09.2025, O.A. No. 464/2025, 465/2025, 466/2025 dated 17.10.2025 & O.A. No. 411/2025 dated 16.12.2025 whereby while disposing of the said OAs, liberty was granted to the applicants therein to submit their comprehensive representation and further, the respondents were directed to consider the same without influence of their earlier order/instructions in respect to the claim of the applicant for grant of enhanced pay scale and reconsider the claim of the applicant in light of the judgment/order passed by the various judicial forums on the subject within stipulated time.
Further, it is submitted that in compliance of the direction issued by this Tribunal O.A. No. 311/2025 dated 04.08.2025 and other connected OAs, the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs vide Letter No. F. No. A-23011/25/2025-AD-IIA dated 24.11.2025 whereby it was conveyed to the Chief Commissioner CGST, Ahmedabad Zone as under:-
2.The matter has been examined in consultation with nodal Ministry i.e. Department of Expenditure. Accordingly, it is requested to implement the above-mentioned Court Orders on „in personam‟ basis, not to be quoted as precedent, in r/o the applicants only, by passing an appropriate speaking and well-reasoned order extending the benefit of DoE‟s OM dated 21.04.2004 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 on notional basis and actually from 21.04.2004, subject to condition that zones are to ensure that the judgments in the above mentioned cases are similar to the judgements/order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the Hon‟ble CAT, Hyderabad Bench and upheld by the Hon‟ble High Court for the State of Telengana at Hyderabad. A compliance Report may also be filed before the appropriate judicial forum under intimation to Board.
3.This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.
It is submitted that in case of Railway employees for grant of benefit of upgraded pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996, the CAT Jaipur Bench in O.A. No. 154/2015 vide dated 01.01.1996 directed the respondents to grant the benefit of pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The said order was challenged by the Railway before the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan by way of filing Write Petition No. DBCWP No. 16305/2022 which came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court. Being aggrieved, the Union of India challenged the said judgment before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of SLP No. 2944/2024 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09.09.2024 held as under:-
“3.We have perused the impugned orders of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal as well as various High Courts.
5.We agree with the views taken by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal that the respondents/ employees were discriminated in the matter of grant of benefit of Fifth Central Pay Commission and the High Court has rightly held that in order to bring them on parity with the other similarly circumstances employees, they were entitled to the revised pay scale with effect from 01.01.1996.
6.We direct the petitioner (s) to clear the arrears within a period of six months from today.” (Annexure RJ 6 ,7 & 8 collectively refer)
Therefore, learned counsel for the applicants would argue that the issue involved in the present OA is no longer res integra. Hence, the applicants herein are undoubtedly entitled for the benefit of upgraded pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
Further, it is submitted that the claim of the applicants not only is based upon the requirement to meet out similarity in treatment to similarly situated employees but is also based upon the cardinal principle of equal pay for equal work.
Learned counsel for the applicants by referring the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union of India vs. Arun Jyoti Kundu & Ors. would argue that it has been sufficiently demonstrated that the responsibilities assigned to the Inspectors of each of the categories in the various Union departments is not being refuted, therefore, it is implicit that the parity in pay scales of such employees is warranted and the difference in the departments cannot warrant any different treatment. In fact, the respondents have themselves analyzed the similar dispensation warranting similarity in pay scales and extension of similar benefits to analogous posts in the Central Board of Excise & Customs. Therefore, having accepted the similarity in the posts, it is not open for the respondents to deny the benefit of enhanced pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
In this regard, it is also submitted that the Government of India has, in principle, accepted the anomaly and has partially removed the anomaly by awarding higher time scale of pay but with effect from 21.04.2004, whereas the recommendation of 5th Pay Commission were given effect from 01.01.1996. When an anomaly came into existence from an earlier date, the same is due for retrospective removal from the date of its occurrence and not from the date from which it is accepted by the Authority. In respect of the said submission, learned counsel for the applicants also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case of Gurmail Singh Daholi & Ors. Vs. Union of India in Civil Writ Peition No. 6223/2007 dated 26.05.2008 (Annexure RJ/9 refer).
Therefore, by referring the aforesaid orders/judgments, learned counsel for the applicant(s) would argue that the issue regarding grant of enhanced pay scale to the Inspectors/Superintendents working in the CGST w.e.f. 01.01.1996, has attained finality and accordingly, the applicant(s) herein are entitled for the said benefits since they are similarly placed officers. Therefore, the case of the applicant is required to be re-considered by the respondents.
Per contra, on receipt of the notice issued by this Tribunal the respondents have filed the reply and denied the claim of the applicants. Mr. H.D. Shukla learned counsel for the respondents by referring the reply mainly submitted that the judgments relied upon by the applicants such as O.A. No. 411/2025 dated 16.12.2025 are complied with by the respondents and benefit has been accorded to the applicants therein, however, the said judgments is to be treated in personam and not in rem.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
At the outset, it can be seen that the controversy/dispute about grant of upgraded pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 instead of 21.04.2004 in respect to of Inspectors/Superintendents working under Department of Revenue which includes both the Board i.e., CBDT and CBIC has been decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in Writ Petition No. 10490/2024 (Union of India Vs. R. Siva Shankara Sastry), vide order dated 09.08.2024.
The aforesaid judgment has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 59005/2024 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. R Siva Shankara Sastry & Ors) and the said SLP came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble apex Court vide order dated 28.02.2025. Thus, it can be seen that the issue regarding grant of enhanced pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 has attained finality.
Further, it can be seen that as per direction issued by this Tribunal in identical OAs (as referred in para 2.4 herein above), the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs vide communication dated 24.11.2025 informed the Chief Commissioner, CGST Ahmedabad Zone to extend the benefit of DoE’s OM dated 21.04.2004 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 on notional basis and actually from 21.04.2004.
It is noticed that in compliance of direction issued by the various Benches of this Tribunal as well as Hon’ble High Courts, the respondents in compliance of the said judgments/orders have extended/granted the benefit of upgraded/enhanced pay scale on notional basis w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and actually from 21.04.2004 to the applicants/petitioners who were party to the said application/petition only by treating the said order as in personam .
In other words, the Inspectors/Superintendents working with the respondents who obtained the judgments/orders passed by the Tribunal/ Hon’ble High Courts, they have been granted enhanced pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
Since, the applicant(s) herein who are similarly placed officers, we are of the considered opinion that they are also required to be treated equally by the respondents while considering their claim for grant of enhanced pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
In this regard, it is suffice to mention that it is settled law that once a benefit has been granted to a set of employees who are holding identical post/employment in the Govt. Department which includes Department of Revenue, the same benefit has to be extended to similarly placed persons. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Lal Berry Vs Collector of Central Excise (1975) 4 SCC 714 held that:
“we may however observe that when a citizen aggrieved by the action of a Government Department has approached the Court and obtain a declaration of law in 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”.
Further, it is profitable to refer the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Pal Yadav Vs Union of India, (1985) 2 SCC 648, it has been held that:
“…… 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.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court by referring the decision in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. C. Lalitha (2006) 2 SCC 747, in a latter case i.e., Uttaranchal Forest Rangers‟ Assn. (Direct Recruit) Vs. State of UP (2006) 10 SCC 346 held that : -
“Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly only because one person approached the Court that would not meant that persons similarly situated should be treated similarly”.
Thus, the identical claim for grant of benefit of upgraded pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 instead of 21.04.2004 as put forth by the Inspectors/Superintendents working under the respondent department is required to be considered by the respondents in light of the judgments referred herein above as also the recent order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 411/2025 dated 16.12.2025.Therefore, benefit of the dicta laid down by the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra) on the point of grant of enhanced pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 cannot be denied by the respondents, by treating the said judgment in personam.
In the present case, since it is not in dispute that the applicants herein are similarly placed employees/Inspectors, they are also required to be treated equally for the purpose of grant of enhanced pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 in light of judgments/orders referred herein above. Therefore, the impugned communication dated 25.07.2023 and impugned communication dated 02.07.2025 communication issued by the respondents to deny the claim of the applicants herein is not tenable in eyes of law.
Thus, in our considered view, the applicant(s) herein are entitled to receive the enhanced pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Accordingly, the OA is partly allowed with direction upon the respondents to extend the benefits of enhanced pay scale to the applicants herein on notional basis w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and actually from 21.04.2004 with all consequential benefits in light of the order/judgment passed by the CAT, Hyderabad Bench which was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as also order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 411/2025 dated 16.12.2025 as referred herein above, without influence of the impugned communication dated 25.07.2023, communication dated 02.07.2025 (Annexure A/2) and other impugned communications, within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and intimate the decision to the applicants forthwith.
In view of the above, OA stands disposed of. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stands dispose of. No order as to cost.