AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
An identical relief which is based on similar facts and circumstances is prayed for by the applicants in both the Original Applications, these applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
The applicants have filed the OAs under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
“....... to call for the records of the 3rd Respondent in O.M. No. C-18011(S)/43/2023-V&L-II (Comp.No.5525)/2003 dated 27.06.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to extend to the Applicants herein the benefits of pay fixation in the post of Inspector of Income Tax and Income Tax Officer in the pay scale of 6500-10500 and 7500-12000 respectively notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and the actual payment as well the arrears thereon to be paid w.e.f. 21.04.2004 along with all other consequential benefits including retirement benefits within a time limit as may be pleased to be ordered by this Hon'ble Bench as decided by various Benches of this Hon'ble Tribunal including the Chennai Bench in O.A No.811 and 1006 of 2025 and pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and thus render justice.
The facts which are essential for adjudication of the OAs are as follows:
The Applicants are retired employees of the Income Tax Department who were serving as Inspectors of Income Tax (ITI) and Income Tax Officers (ITO) as on 01.01.1996. Several of the Applicants were subsequently promoted to higher posts, including Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), and Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT), prior to their retirement. Pursuant to the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission, with effect from 01.01.1996, the pay scales of Inspectors of Income Tax and Income Tax Officers were revised to ₹5,500–9,000 and ₹6,500–10,500, respectively. However, corresponding posts in other Central Government Departments were granted higher revised pay scales of ₹6,500–10,500 and ₹7,500– 12,000, respectively. The Department of Expenditure subsequently recognised and rectified the said anomaly by upgrading the pay scales of Inspectors of Income Tax and Income Tax Officers so as to bring them at par with the corresponding posts in other Central Government Departments. However, by Office Memorandum dated 21.04.2004, the benefit of the upgraded pay scales was granted only prospectively, without extending the benefit notionally from 01.01.1996. Aggrieved by the denial of the benefit with effect from 01.01.1996, the Income Tax Gazetted Officers Association (ITGOA) challenged the said Office Memorandum before the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 86/2008. By order dated 17.01.2012, the Tribunal allowed the claim and directed that the revised pay scales be extended notionally with effect from 01.01.1996. The Department challenged the aforesaid order of the Mumbai Bench before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 9649/2012. The said Writ Petition was ultimately disposed of on 08.12.2023, whereby the Hon'ble High Court directed the Department to implement the benefits in accordance with the recommendations of the Special Anomaly Committee, in parity with the relief granted in a similar matter arising before the Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal. In the meantime, various Benches of this Tribunal across the country, including the Kolkata, Ahmedabad, Chennai, Hyderabad and Principal Bench, have consistently adjudicated in favour of similarly situated employees of the Income Tax Department as well as the Central Excise and Customs Departments. In these matters, the Tribunals have directed notional fixation of pay with effect from 01.01.1996, with consequential monetary benefits/arrears payable from 21.04.2004. The Respondents have repeatedly sought to challenge the aforesaid orders before the higher judicial forums; however, such attempts have not succeeded. Significantly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) preferred by the Department against the order of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal on 28.02.2025, thereby lending further finality to the relief granted to similarly situated employees. Despite the aforesaid judicial pronouncements and directions, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), by order dated 27.06.2025, sought to restrict the implementation of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The said order stipulated that the benefit of the revised pay scales would be extended only to those individuals who were members of the Income Tax Gazetted Officers Association (ITGOA) as on the date of filing of the original O.A., i.e., 31.01.2008. The aforesaid restriction is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the consistent judicial pronouncements of various Benches of the Tribunal, the Hon'ble High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Applicants, who were holding the posts of Inspectors of Income Tax and Income Tax Officers as on 01.01.1996, cannot be deprived of the benefit of the revised pay scales merely on the ground that they were not members of the ITGOA as on 31.01.2008. The entitlement to the benefit arises from the post held and the duties and responsibilities attached thereto, and cannot be made dependent upon membership of an association, particularly when the judicial determinations have recognised the anomaly and directed rectification thereof with effect from 01.01.1996. The impugned order dated 27.06.2025 not only seeks to restrict the benefit of the judicially recognised revised pay scales to a limited class of persons but also results in the denial of consequential benefits to similarly situated retired employees. The denial of such benefits has a direct and substantial bearing upon the pensionary and other retiral benefits of the Applicants, since the notional revision of pay affects the determination of their qualifying emoluments and consequential pensionary entitlements. The Applicants are, therefore, constrained to approach this Tribunal seeking appropriate relief against the arbitrary and discriminatory restriction imposed by the Respondents and for extension of the benefit of the revised pay scales with effect from 01.01.1996, together with all consequential benefits, including the corresponding revision of pensionary and retiral benefits, in accordance with the law and the binding judicial pronouncements on the subject.
The learned counsel for the applicants contended that the 1st Respondent happens to be a party in almost all the cases filed before various Benches of this Tribunal. In fact, in certain cases, aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the 1st Respondent along with other Respondents in the O.A. have approached the respective Hon'ble High Court and also suffered an order against them. In few cases, they have also approached the Supreme Court, where the SLP came to be dismissed. In view of the same, it is not just and proper on the part of the 1st Respondent to selectively grant relief to the individuals who were parties to the O.A. and ignoring the others who are similarly placed in all aspects.
He further submitted that pursuant to the direction issued by Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta which directed the Respondent to constitute a Special Anomaly Committee to verify whether pay parity have taken place amongst the similarly placed employees, the committee submitted its recommendation holding that the anomaly does exists. The recommendation of the committee was accepted by the Government of India and benefits came to be extended to the employees who were parties to the O.A. vide communication dated 22-09-2023 from CBDT to the Principal Chief Commissioner of I.T., Kolkata. Once the recommendation of the Committee has been accepted by the Government of India as well as 1st Respondent herein there should not be any embargo to extend the benefits to all the persons who are holding the post of Inspector of Income Tax and Income Tax Officer as on 01.01.1996 and subsequently.
He further pointed out that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in WP No.9649 of 2012 filed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents of this O.A. against the order of the Mumbai bench of this Tribunal in O.A.86/2008, directed the Government as "to adopt the same course of action as has been done in respect of the Original Applicants who had approached Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal that is acceptance of the report of the Special Anomaly Committee and subsequent orders giving effect thereto." But the impugned O.M. was not issued as per the directions of the Bombay High Court. While the stress in the Hon’ble High Court's order was on the "same course of action" which was also explained by the Hon’ble High Court as "that is acceptance of the report of the Special Anomaly Committee and subsequent orders given effect thereto" the Respondent gave stress to the word "Applicants" and confined the benefits to the Applicant, i.e., ITGOA, which was before Mumbai CAT.
He further submitted that the Special Anomaly Committee found anomalies in the pay scales of all the thirteen applicants before the Kolkata bench of this Tribunal and pay scales of all of them were revised without imposing any additional condition such as their membership of the Association, their cadre (whether Inspector or ITO), etc. Therefore, following the decision of the Bombay High Court, anomalies identified by the Special Anomaly Committee exist for all the Inspectors and ITOs who have worked between 01.01.1996 and 20.4.2004 drawing the pay scales of 5500-9000 and 6500-10500 respectively.
He further submitted that as a consequence, the Respondents ought to have extended the benefit of revised pay scales to all the similarly placed Inspectors of Income Tax and Income Tax Officers without forcing them to go for litigation. Thus, the impugned O.M. restricting the benefit to the members of ITGOA is not in accordance with the judgement of Bombay High Court.
He submitted that the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal did not fix any such date. Even while fixing the particular date, which itself is not correct, the Respondents have deliberately used the word "on" instead of "up to" which would have covered at least all the members of the Association who had drawn less than due salary from 01.01.1996 to 31.01.2008. Thus an I.T.O. who has drawn less than due salary for a period of 12 years (from 1-1-1996 to 31-12-2007) has been deprived of his due salary and retirement benefits just because he retired on 31-12-2007 and thereby he ceased to be a member of the Association as on 31-1-2008. Thus, the sole objective of the Respondents was to reduce, by any means, the cost of implementing the judgement of the Bombay High Court instead of implementing it faithfully as directed by the High Court and throwing to wind all norms of justice and fair play.
He further submitted that the pay scales of the employees of the Central Govt., have strangely been linked not to the nature of work of the post but to the promotion to the next cadre and also membership of the Association, that too, on a particular date. Therefore, what the impugned O.M. has actually done is contrary to the directions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. In this connection it is relevant to note that the earlier O.M. dated 21.4.2004 of the Dept. of Expenditure which revised the pay scales prospectively did so for all the Income Tax Inspectors and Officers without any discrimination on the basis of their grade (Inspector or ITO), membership of Association, etc.
He drew our attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. C. Lalitha (2006) 2 SCC 747 wherein it was held as under; -
"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"
He also drew our attention that CBIC & CBDT had challenged the earlier orders passed by various Benches of the Tribunal across the country granting notional fixation of pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and the same has been accepted and implemented. Now they cannot issue a OM and restrict the same to only those members of ITGOA as on 31.01.2008. Thus, he prayed for the relief sought in the present OAs.
Per contra the learned counsel for the respondents relied on the reply statement and submitted that the pay scales of Inspectors and Income Tax Officers were revised by the 5th CPC w.e.f 01.01.1996 as Rs.5,500-9,000/-and Rs.6,500-10,500/- respectively. Later, the Government of India, Department of Expenditure (Implementation Cell), vide Office Memorandum bearing F.No.6/37/98-IC dated 21.04.2004, revised the pay scales of the categories of posts mentioned therein, including Inspectors to Rs. 6,500-10,500/- and Income Tax Officers to Rs. 7,500-12,000/-. The decision to implement the revised scales prospectively from the date of issuance of the OM was a conscious policy decision taken by the competent authority and was an integral and deliberate part of the OM itself.
He pointed out that the order dated 17.01.2012 passed by the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.86/2008 was in personam only. The relevant extract of the judgment of the Tribunal is reproduced as below:
"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."
He further submitted that the Special Anomaly Committee was constituted pursuant to, and in compliance with the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in W.P.(CT) No. 21 of 2015. IT would be relevant to state that the mandate of the Committee was strictly confined to examining the representations of the 13 applicants in OA.No.397/2009. The decision of the Special Anomaly Committee was a judicial compliance exercise and cannot be treated as an independent policy decision by the CBDT to extend such benefits generally across the cadre. He further pointed out that each of the judgments relied upon by the Applicants was rendered in favour of the applicants in that particular case and does not constitute a judgment in rem. The entitlement of any individual to similar relief remains subject to verification of the facts and circumstances applicable to such individual. Therefore, mere reliance on judgments rendered in other OA’s would not automatically entitle the present Applicants with an enforceable right to the same relief.
The learned counsel also drew our attention to Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sudama Singh & Ors (SLP(C) 1587-1588/2014) and submitted that while dismissing the SLP vide order dated 12.07.2024, the Apex Court has observed as follows:
"We do not find any legal and valid ground for interference. The special leave petitions are dismissed. However, the relief granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) as affirmed by the High Court shall be confined to the parties before the Tribunal as well as before the High Court. This is without prejudice to the rights of other claimants which will be adjudicated on its own merit as and when any such claim is raised." As such, according to him, this directly answers the Applicants' contention and confirms that the entitlement of any individual to similar relief remains subject to independent adjudication on its own facts, and is not an automatic consequence of an order passed in a proceeding to which such individual was not a party.
He further submitted that the cut-off date of 31.01.2008 was fixed with reference to the membership position of the Association as on the date of filing of the OA. before the Mumbai Bench, and constitutes a reasonable and rational basis for implementing an order that was, by its own terms, confined to the litigating Association and its members. He further pointed out that the word "on" in preference to "up to" was arbitrary; such classification is a permissible incident of confining relief to those actually covered by the judicial direction, and does not offend Article 14 of the Constitution.
He further submitted that the differential treatment between officers who were parties/Association members as on the relevant date and those who were not does not constitute a fresh or impermissible anomaly, but flows from the fact that the earlier orders were rendered in personam in favour of specific litigants. Such classification is founded on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object of implementing judicial orders limited to the parties thereto, and accordingly does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
He finally submitted that even assuming, without admitting, that the doctrine of parity/extension of benefit to similarly situated persons who did not approach the court is otherwise applicable, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, has itself carved out the principle that such extension is not available to persons guilty of delay and laches, or where there exists a justifiable basis to treat them differently both squarely apply to the Applicants herein, who neither impleaded themselves in the earlier proceedings, nor sought to be joined therein, nor pursued their claim independently within a reasonable time, despite admittedly being aware of the pendency. Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of the OAs
We have carefully considered the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties were also perused by us.
The core issue arising for consideration in the present Original Applications is whether the Office Memorandum dated 27.06.2025, whereby the benefit of notional fixation of pay with effect from 01.01.1996, along with the consequential actual monetary benefits payable from 21.04.2004, in terms of the recommendations of the Anomaly Committee and the Office Memorandum issued pursuant thereto, has been restricted only to the members of the Income Tax Gazetted Officers’ Association (ITGOA) as on 31.01.2008, thereby excluding all other similarly situated employees, is legally sustainable or not.
The Inspectors’ Association of the Income Tax Department had earlier filed OA No. 86 of 2008 before the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal seeking notional fixation of the enhanced pay scale with effect from 01.01.1996. The said OA was allowed by order dated 17.01.2012, wherein the respondents/Union of India were directed to issue necessary instructions for implementing the upgraded pay scale notionally from 01.01.1996 and to pay the consequential arrears of salary.
In the meanwhile, similarly situated employees had filed OA No. 397 of 2009 before the Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal, which was also decided in their favour. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents approached the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta by filing WPCT No. 21 of 2015. By order dated 03.05.2023, the Hon’ble High Court disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the Union of India to constitute a Special Anomaly Committee to examine and decide the issue.
Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta, a Special Anomaly Committee was constituted. The Committee examined the matter and recommended that the enhanced pay scale be granted notionally with effect from 01.01.1996 and actually from 21.04.2004. The said recommendation was accepted by the Government of India and communicated vide CBDT letter dated 22.09.2023.
Certain applicants, serving as Inspectors in the Central Excise Department, have contended that they are similarly situated to the applicants in OA No. 86 of 2008, as they were also affected by the very same Office Memorandum, dated 21.04.2004. They claim entitlement to notional pay fixation with effect from 01.01.1996 on grounds of parity. However, despite the decision of the Mumbai Bench in OA No. 86 of 2008, the respondent authorities, by order dated 28.12.2018, informed that the Department of Expenditure had not agreed to ante-date the effective date of the upgraded pay scale to 01.01.1996, even for the limited purpose of notional fixation.
Aggrieved by the order dated 28.12.2018, the applicants in OA No. 86 of 2008 and certain other similarly placed employees approached the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal by filing OA No. 1089 of 2019 and batch. The Tribunal, by a common order, dated 09.01.2024, allowed the said OAs and directed the respondents to grant the enhanced pay scale to Inspectors/Superintendents in the Central Tax and Customs Department notionally with effect from 01.01.1996 to all the applicants, along with consequential arrears.
Challenging the common order dated 09.01.2024 passed in OA No. 1089 of 2019 and batch, the respondents/Union of India approached the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad by filing Writ Petition No. 10490 of 2024. The said Writ Petition was dismissed vide its judgment, dated 09.08.2024. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
"24.In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that once a special Anomaly Committee was constituted in CBDT pursuant to the orders of Kolkata High Court and based on the recommendations of the said Committee, when it was implemented retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.1996 in the CBDT, there is no need to constitute separate Special Anomaly Committee for the CBIC again since the Department of Revenue being the common for both the CBDT and CBIС.
25.Further, as per the Office Memorandum dated 06.02.1998, there will be two level Anomaly Committees, National and Departmental. The National Anomaly Committee deals with the common to two or more Departments and in respect of the common categories of employees; and that Departmental Anomaly Committee will deal with the Anomalies pertaining to exclusively to the Department concerned and therefore, CBDT and CBIC being two separate boards under the same Department of Revenue, the recommendations of Special Anomaly Committee constituted pursuant to directions of Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in W.P.(CT)No.21 of 2015 have to be applied to the entire Department.
26.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal had rightly allowed the O.A.No.1089 of 2019 and batch vide order dated 09.01.2024 directing the petitioners herein to grant enhanced pay scale of Inspectors/Superintendents in the Central Tax and Customs Department from 01.01.1996 notionally to the respondents along with consequential arrears. The petitioners failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order; therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by this Tribunal. “
The aforesaid judgment was further affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 59005/2024 vide judgment dated 09.10.2024. Consequently, the Order passed by the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1089 of 2019 has attained finality.
It is true that several litigations were instituted before different Benches of this Tribunal as well as before various Hon’ble High Courts, including the Bombay High Court, the Telangana High Court, and the High Court at Calcutta (Kolkata), on the same issue. Orders were passed in favour of the respective employees; however, all such orders were rendered in personam, including the Order dated 03.05.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta (Kolkata) in W.P.C.T. No. 21 of 2015. As the present applicants were not parties to those proceedings, they were not extended the benefit of the subsequent decision of the Government of India vide letter dated 22.09.2023.
With reference to the issue of the judgment to be applied in ‘personam’ or in ‘rem’ the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka & Others Vs. C. Lalitha reported in (2006) 2 SCC 747 held in Para 29 that
"Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time-to-time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently." Therefore, it is a settled law that once a benefit has been granted to a set of employees, the same benefit has to be extended to other similarly placed persons.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment, dated 09.12.2024 in the case of Lt. Col Suprita Chandel Vs Union of India, in Civil Appeal No.1943/2022, observed in Para No.15 as under:
“15.In K.L. Shephard & Others Vs Union of India & Others reported in (1987) 4 SCC 431, this court while reinforcing the above principle held as under
“19.The writ petitions and the appeals must succeed. We set aside the impugned judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and direct that each of the three transferee banks should take over the excluded employees on the same terms and conditions of employment under the respective banking companies prior to moratorium. The employee would be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service for all purposes including salary and perks throughout the period. We leave it open to the transferee banks to take such action as they consider proper against these employees in accordance with law. Some of the excluded employees have not come to Court. There is no justification to penalise them for not having litigated. They too shall be entitled to the same benefits as the petitioners……..”
This view was fortified by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in paras 15 to 17 of its judgment, dated 11.08.2025 in W.P.No.33537/2023, as under:
“15.Treating similarly situated persons dissimilarly is anathematic to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As rightly held by the Tribunal, being a model employer, the writ petitioners ought to have implemented the orders of the Supreme Court across the bar, without waiting for a person to approach the court. They need not have waited for a litigation to be commenced for the purpose of granting a relief to the second respondent, which he was otherwise entitled to.
16.Furthermore, this court while dealing with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, does not sit, as a court of appeal. The scope of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is supervisory or visitorial. This Court is concerned only about the decision-making process and not with the decision itself. We do not find the order of the Tribunal to be so unreasonable to require interference on our part.
17.The Tribunal has applied the right principles of law to the facts before it and has rendered justice between the parties. That being the position, we do not find any reason to interfere. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. “
In the light of the referred judicial pronouncements as well as the recommendation of the Special Anomaly Committee, it is evident that denial of retrospective application of the revised pay scales for the applicant, who is similarly situated with the officers of other departments constitutes a violation of the principles of equality and fair treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court have time and again emphasized the necessity for uniform application of benefits across similarly situated employees, mitigating the inequity that arises when distinct treatments are applied arbitrarily. In the present case, we find that the recommendations made by the Special Anomaly Committee for fixation of the applicant's pay scales underscore this necessity for equitable treatment.
In view of the foregoing discussion, it is submitted that the various orders passed by the Hon’ble Courts, as referred to hereinabove, are judgments in rem, applicable to all similarly situated employees, including the applicants in the present Original Application. Such judgments cannot be construed as judgments in personam confined only to the individual litigants therein.
In these circumstances, when this Tribunal and the Hon’ble High Courts have unequivocally held that the relevant orders operate in rem, and when the respondent department has accepted and implemented such orders, the question arises whether the respondent department is legally competent to unilaterally (suo motu) reinterpret or treat those binding decisions as being in personam, according to its discretion. Such action on the part of the respondent department is liable to be held arbitrary, unsustainable in law, and contrary to settled judicial principles.
It is noted that the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal, in OA No. 1089/2019, by order dated 09.01.2024, directed the respondents to grant enhanced pay on a notional basis from 01.01.1996 and actual monetary benefits from 21.04.2004. The said order was affirmed by the Hon’ble Telangana High Court by judgment dated 09.08.2024 and was further upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by judgment dated 09.10.2024.
As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Applicants, both the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) function under the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. It is not in dispute that the CBIC has not issued any Office Memorandum analogous to the impugned Office Memorandum dated 27.06.2025 restricting the benefit of notional pay fixation to the members of the concerned Association as on a particular date. Consequently, similarly situated employees of the CBIC have been extended the benefit of pay fixation with effect from 01.01.1996, whereas the Applicants and other similarly situated employees under the CBDT have been denied the same solely by virtue of the impugned Office Memorandum dated 27.06.2025, which restricts the benefit to those who were members of the ITGOA as on 31.01.2008. In our considered view, such a restriction is wholly unsustainable. The entitlement to the benefit of revised pay fixation cannot legitimately be made dependent upon membership of an employees' association as on a particular date, particularly when the Applicants are otherwise similarly situated and their entitlement flows from the judicial pronouncements and the recommendations of the Anomaly Committee.
In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, we hold that the impugned Office Memorandum dated 27.06.2025, insofar as it restricts the benefit of pay fixation with effect from 01.01.1996 only to those employees who were members of the ITGOA as on 31.01.2008, is arbitrary, discriminatory and legally unsustainable. The said restriction is, accordingly, quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to refix the pay of the Applicants with effect from 01.01.1996 in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997, and to extend to them the consequential benefits in the grades of Inspector of Income Tax and Income Tax Officer on a notional basis with effect from 01.01.1996 and on an actual monetary basis with effect from 21.04.2004. The Applicants shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits arising therefrom, including revision of pensionary and other retiral benefits, together with the consequential arrears, in accordance with law. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the Respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
In the result, both the OAs are allowed on the terms indicated as above. There shall be no order as to costs.