SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3539

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
M Swaminathan, Judicial Member, M L Srivastava, Administrative Member
M Raja Climax – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s P. Ayyamperumal
For the Respondents: Mr. J. Vasu

Inspectors/Superintendents in Central Excise/Customs granted notional pay fixation w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and actual benefits from 21.04.2004, ensuring parity with CBDT employees under Article 14 via Special Anomaly Committee recommendations.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 21 - Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 - 5th Central Pay Commission - Pay revision for Inspectors and Superintendents in Central Excise/Customs - Upgraded pay scales Rs.6500-10500 for Inspectors and Rs.7500-12000 for Superintendents made effective from 21.04.2004 instead of 01.01.1996 - Applicant sought quashing of Office Memoranda to grant benefits w.e.f. 01.01.1996 with arrears and 18% interest - Tribunal held employees similarly situated to those in CBDT entitled to notional fixation w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and actual monetary benefits from 21.04.2004, relying on precedents from Tribunal Benches, High Courts and Supreme Court affirming parity under Article 14 - Special Anomaly Committee recommendations applied across Department of Revenue - Delay not fatal as pay fixation recurring cause of action; judgments in rem applicable to all similarly situated - Impugned orders set aside; pay to be refixed notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and actually from 21.04.2004 with consequential benefits including pension within two months. (Paras 21, 28, 34, 40)

(B) Service Law - Parity and Equality - Article 14 of Constitution - Similarly situated employees must be treated alike; benefit granted to one group via judicial orders or anomaly committee extends to others without discrimination - Fence-sitters not denied relief merely for delay when issue recurs in pay/pension fixation - Dismissal of SLPs without speaking order does not negate parity principle. (Paras 32, 33, 35)

(C) Limitation - Section 21(3) Administrative Tribunals Act - No condonation application needed where cause continues; subsequent implementations and final judicial affirmations provide basis without reviving stale claim - Doctrine of laches inapplicable to equality claims. (Paras 30, 31)

Facts of the case:
Applicant, Inspector promoted to Superintendent, retired in 2014, challenged Office Memoranda fixing upgraded pay scales from 21.04.2004 instead of 01.01.1996 per 5th Pay Commission, seeking parity with CBDT employees granted notional benefits w.e.f. 01.01.1996 via Special Anomaly Committee; respondents contested on limitation, personam judgments, and policy finality.

Findings of Court:
Impugned orders set aside; respondents directed to refix pay notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and grant actual monetary benefits from 21.04.2004 with arrears and consequential pensionary benefits within two months.

Issues: Entitlement to notional pay fixation w.e.f. 01.01.1996; applicability of parity despite delay/laches; personam vs. in rem nature of precedents; limitation under Section 21.

Ratio Decidendi: Similarly situated employees across Department of Revenue entitled to uniform pay revision benefits w.e.f. 01.01.1996 notionally per anomaly rectification and affirmed judgments; Article 14 mandates parity, overriding delay objections in recurring pay matters; prior orders in rem bind department.

Result: Original Application allowed.

Table of Content
1. applicant's service history and pay scale revision issue. (Para 2)
2. precedents support pay revision from 01.01.1996. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. oa barred by limitation and laches. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. history of anomaly committee and judicial affirmations. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
5. equality mandates benefits for similarly situated employees. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
6. notional pay from 1996, actual from 2004. (Para 38 , 39 , 40)
7. oa allowed with specified directions. (Para 41)

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

The applicant has filed the OA seeking the following relief:

“A) ….To call for records and proceedings of the case which led to the passing of the orders i.e (i) Office Memorandum in File No.6/37/98-IC dated 21.04.2004 ie Annexure -A1 and (ii) Office Memorandum in File No.26017/65/2003-Ad.II-A(Pt) dated 11.05.2004 i.e Annexure A.2 its subsequent (latest) Office Memorandum in File No. A.26017/65/2003-Ad.II-A(Pt)25.07.2023 i.e Annexure A3 and after going though their propriety, legality and constitutional validity be pleased to quash and set aside the same only to the extent it makes the revised pay scale effective from 21.04.2004 instead of 01.01.1996, with further directions to the respondents to grant the benefit of revised scale/grade w.e.f. 01.01.1996 with further directions to the respondents to grant the benefit of revised pay scale/grade w.e.f. 01.01.1996 with appropriate pay fixation and pension fixation and actual benefit i.e. grant of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to Inspector (Applicant) (Central Excise & Customs) and Rs.7500-12000/- wef 01.01.1996 to Superintendent (Central Excise & Customs) along with actual arrears of pay(consequential benefits) with 18% interest thereon.

B) To hold and declare that the impugned action of the respondents to revise and pay scale from 21.04.2004 (Annexure-A1) is absolutely arbitrary and illegal and accordingly hold, declare and direct the respondents that the Inspector and Superintendent(Central Excise) are entitled to the revised pay scales of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f.01.01.1996 to Inspector (Central Excise) and Rs.7500-12000/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to Superintendent(Central Excise) with all consequential benefits i.e proper pay fixation,Pension fixation and actual arrears of salary, Pension and other retiral dues with 18% interest thereon

C) Any other and further additional orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the naturaland circumstances of the case may be passed.

D) Cost of the application be provided for.”

2. The facts leading to the filing of the case are as follows:

The applicant joined as Inspector in the Central Excise on 12.10.1978 and promoted to the post of Superintendent on 01.07.1996 and and retired as such on superannuation on 31.05.2014. Subsequently, he was promoted as Assistant Commissioner w.e.f. 01.04.2013 by an order dated 18.09.2024. Prior to 01.01.1996, the pay scale of Inspectors/Preventive Officers/Customs Examiners was Rs. 1640–2900. On promotion to the post of Superintendent/Appraiser, the applicable pay scale was Rs. 2000– 3500. Upon implementation of the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission, the pay scale of Inspectors/Customs Examiners/Preventive Officers was revised to Rs. 6500–10500, and that of Superintendents/Appraisers was revised to Rs. 7500–12000. However, the revised pay scales were made effective from 21.04.2004 instead of 01.01.1996, the date on which the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission came into effect. Despite various decisions rendered by Tribunals and High Courts across the country, and finally by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the benefit of the revised pay scales of Rs. 6500–10500 for Inspectors/Customs Examiners/Preventive Officers and Rs. 7500– 12000 for Superintendents/Appraisers were denied to the applicant. Hence, the OA for the aforementioned relief.

3

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top